Another problem is fundamentally the game you're playing is mass and capex providing a way to turn air and H2 into power. Author is correct that fuel cells suck, but whats even worse is a little hybrid H2 turbine would be lighter, cheaper, higher powered, and in a real world situation, higher natgas well to wheel efficiency. In fact, rather than turning natgas from a well into H2, you'd be better off just burning the natgas in the turbine.
Turbines do have some deployment issues such as outputing enough nitrogen oxides to generate a cloud, etc. But in a hybrid system, they're pretty cool.
Basically you're taking an electric car and a very small electric company natgas peaking plant and putting it in the trunk with a charger.
On solution to the long distance car storage is simply not to.
There are less than 50,000 miles of interstate highways in the US. If we added a 3rd rail or similar system for powering cars as they traveled range and efficiency quickly become a non issue.
Granted, the interstate highway system would just be the start eventually you would want to cover just about every road. Not to mention safety concerns etc, but it's a real option.
Look up energy efficiency per person in cities like NYC versus Los Angeles. Subways , rail based transportation, and public transportation significantly reduce energy usage per person. The problem is that it's impossible to build these systems in the huge suburban sprawls that make up most of the United states.
No, subways are very appropriate in certain situations. It wouldn't make sense to build an 8 lane highway to connect two towns in the backwoods of Alaska, but that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are a solution in search of a problem.
Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns.
Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns
Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles.
Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections.
That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply)
Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you?
PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
* Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass.
* The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this.
* This quote from wikipedia:
> However, because third rail systems present electric shock
> hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V)
> are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore
> be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high
> resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced
> feed points (electrical substations).
I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass.
Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true.
As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway.
* The distances involved...
There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective.
"In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction."
3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems.
At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.
Unlike Europe, most of the urban infrastructure of the United states centers around the automobile. I'm not referring to roads vs train tracks. I'm referring to density Of the population. Our suburban cul De sacs make most forms of rail based public transportation prohibitely expensive to build. Only in a high density city like nyc would this make sense.
To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities.
> To address the problem we need to dramitcally change our cities.
I am continually amazed at the angst it causes many people when you suggest that the current American way of life will have to change. When you say that in 20 years people won't be driving everywhere a lot of folks really freak out.
The arithmetic plainly indicates we simply will not all be driving or riding in cars regularly in the future. Hydrogen vs. lithium batteries vs. gasoline doesn't even enter into it. There simply won't be the joules for everyone to get about that way. People will be walking, bicycling, and riding boring old 19th century speed trains. Peak Oil is now-ish and nothing else is set to provide the joules necessary to power personal vehicles on the current scale, regardless of vehicle power plants.
Your numbers [1] are off by 3x - the federal highway administration calculates 164K miles of highway.
However, like Tesla's Supercharger idea perhaps a targeted rollout of functionality to connect major centers combined with the existing charging infrastructure would settle the "range anxiety" issues.
interstate highway system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System ) != National Highway System. It's specificly the blue lines on "Figure 1-3: National Highway System" from you link. The point is not covering every road it's just a reasonable first goal.
The article deftly steps around the real issue: Fuel Cells are entirely an petroleum industry promotion.
The goal is to provide a seemingly credible (but in reality completely unworkable) clean alternative so politicians, car companies and oil companies together can work "towards a clean future" while deep down knowing that it's a stalling tactic to keep the petroleum infrastructure in place.
Any fuel cell funding sucks the oxygen from the real threats to the industry: Industrial/Consumer solar and BEV (battery electric vehicles).
I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil. What on earth do the car companies have to get out of it?
The big name in the 90s, Ballard, had buy in from a couple of car companies and no oil companies.
> I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil.
I'd guess car manufacturers have two economic interests: 1) The less energy for automobiles costs, the more people will use them, and 2) the less economic harm there is from climate change, the more people will use cars.
I could see #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry, and #2 motivating them to support clean energy.
The conspiracy hypothesis is that the oil people have long ago acquired controlling interest in the auto corporations. Via foundations, funds, banks, etc.
"I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil."
I don't know if car manufacturers are in league with big oil per se, but I have heard it argued convincingly that the repair and maintenance costs that are implied by the IC engine and its infrastructure in the car are a huge source of revenue for the entire auto ecosystem, and they just cannot give that up.
Don't picture a bunch of oil tycoons with monocles sitting in back rooms smoking cigars with Ford execs laughing about how they are going to crush Tesla.
It's much more subtle than that. I grew up around cars. My dad races them as his hobby. We restored a few, and spent plenty of time wrenching on a car together. It was one of the highlights of my childhood. It's still one of the things we often talk about when we see each other. I'm sure it's the reason I got a mechanical engineering degree.
When I think back to those times, a bunch of fragments of memories pop up. The sound a racing motor makes the first time you fire it up. The smell of gasoline vs diesel vs oil vs brake fluid vs transmission fluid. The grease on your hands. Knowing all the components under the hood, how they go together. How to start a cold engine with a flakey carb. How to fix a flooded engine.
There is real nostalgia around cars, and that means gasoline/diesel engines. I can barely enjoy modern cars with their plastic engine fairings and electronic controls, much less an electric car with just batteries and motors. I love building robots, and I'm a professional programmer now, but electric cars just don't excite me from the perspective of working on them. (Driving a Tesla is a different story).
Layer on top of that nostalgia, which I believe most of the people that work in the auto industry have, is the reality of 100+ years of IC engine expertise. If electric cars are the future, how much advantage does Ford have over a startup? Certainly some, but not nearly as much as they do in gasoline engines. Every bit of the drive train is completely different in an electric car. Not only are you throwing out the expertise in engines, but transmissions and differentials as well.
I can imagine that makes their position less defendable.
>I can imagine that makes their position less defendable.
What you've written I agree with, but it's a long way off from the OP's conspiracy. Cars have been around a long time, so the affinity is natural result all that history.
It will change. I'm also a "car guy". I recently entered into four-year lease on a new vehicle, and on the drive home I told my significant other it's probable that this will be the last ICE we ever buy (and perhaps the last car that we actually drive off the lot ourselves). It's funny to think about.
There is real nostalgia around cars, and that means gasoline/diesel engines.
Sure. And as a petrolhead, I will miss IC engines when they go. But it's a long leap from "implicit affection for IC engines" to "strategically presenting a build-to-fail engine technology to discredit alternative fuel".
When I think back... I think back to sitting on top of a horse, as we make a journey together. The feel of his hair in your hands as you lean forward. The fun of sitting back while he eats grass. So relaxing and with a sense of bonding.
I mean... who would replace a living breathing horse, who is part of the family, with a smelly machine that breaks?
There is real nostalgia around horses. And phone booths. and Sony Walkman. and CRTs. And... and... and... .. .
People hate change. Just because "cars = gas/diesel" to YOU doesn't mean that a new generation of kids won't break their teeth, and learn to be engineers, with electric or hydrogen or whatever....
You may have intended this to be a rebuttal, but you actually made the same argument as the person you were replying to. Once the nostalgia/sensation surrounding horses were gone, the companies providing transportation had no more incumbent advantage over auto manufacturers.
Likewise, once incumbent car manufacturers can't promote some of the things that people fondly associate with cars, new alternative car companies are better able to put them out of business.
The best point in your comment is that alternative car companies may be able to generate some of that nostalgia early enough to use it against incumbents - I think this is possible and that for some people, they will be happy to trade petroleum good feelings for electric good feelings while petroleum-based cars are still a sizeable part of the market.
The difference is that mass production of cars is a scale game, unlike dealing with horses. Horse-breeding is best done locally, whilst the drivetrain engineering is really NBD when one is swapped out for the other. Tesla famously droped its first powertrains into 3rd part chasis, and they did quite well with it.
The issue is whether or not the "crown jewels" of EVs will be worth so much (ie, via patented features or trade secrets) that this will allow companies to extract rents. The problem with this approach is that rents only come out from high prices--and this is what tesla is doing--and this won't lead to enough revenues to replicate the infrastrucure of the current (behemoth) chassis makers.
So I don't think its quite cut and dry that upstarts will win out (winner take all) in the long run. It seems most likely whoever wins will M&A their way to global scale by integrating into the existing business structure of the global auto industry.
Look at facebook--they are only making money by becoming the next generation of Madison Avenue. They didn't really change the world in that regards, they simply integrated into the existing circulation system of the media-industrial complex.
Madison avenue doesn't care which blinking screed you stare at for four to eight hours a day, they just want to print money.
Similarly, the auto industry couldn't care less about whether or not you drive a clean or petrol motor. Seriously, all they care about is that you take out a loan from them to buy a box of metal that costs 30 to 50k and make your payments on time.
In other words, the business model will not really change.
The issueas about fly-by wire and the inability to work on your car are already here. It costs $700 dollars to change the battery on a BMW, because its locked down by SW. But that is a superficial level of business model change. Upgrades and spare parts will always be a busienesss line, but the core sale will always revolve around ownership of a block of metal or composites that locks you into the need to maintain it.
The more fururistic car companies of tomorrow are likely going to be something like uber or zip car combined with driverless cars and provided on-demand. But until you get to a system that fundamentally changes the distribution of transportation assets and the service model on that scale, the existing players will not really be obsolete.
I would think it is more with leveraging existing infrastructure. It isn't so much that these companies are "in league" with big oil. More that a large portion of the infrastructure they have right now benefits from not needing to be retooled.
Consider the costs that companies such as (solely as) Tesla are having to front to get a refueling infrastructure in place to make their cars considerable.
Almost all Tesla car charging occurs in owners' garages, where Tesla doesn't have to front anything. Tesla's supercharger network is funded by a $2,000 addition to each luxury car that they sell. Both kinds of chargers use a lot of pre-existing electricity infrastructure.
Right... And they are trying to get things placed in locations such as shopping malls and eating locations so that for trips one could step inside while it charges.
This is a large portion of why families can't really get one of these vehicles. If I can't take this thing on a family trip, there is no point in even trying to get one.
For one, because they see Tesla as "winning" this "paradigm shift in cars", which could be (will be, in my opinion) just as disruptive as Apple's touchscreen was to the former cellphone industry.
In such a situation having the paradigm shift happen in the first place is bad news for you, especially if you're a leader of the old paradigm. Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were all laughing off the iPhone in the first few years, so people would stay away from them and keep buying their "old stuff".
So yeah, I can very much see how companies like Toyota and whoever else is promoting the totally unworkable fuel cell car "revolution" would be in bed with the oil industry. They'd rather push for something that barely changes the status quo, but at the same time is seen as "revolutionary" in the media, than go into electric cars.
"I really don't understand the whole cars are in league with big oil."
Yeah, nobody would ever "conspire" when trillions upon trillions of dollars in economic activity, millions of entrenched (and often unionized) jobs, hundreds of billions of dollars of sunk cost in infrastructure, the economies of entire nations and regions of nations, and generations of established thinking are at stake. That never happens. The parent poster is just one of those conspiracy nuts.
Sorry for the combative tone, but I'm a bit tired of seeing this kind of naivete. Of course people will conspire and engage in stalling and other underhanded political tactics to stop things that are a threat to huge industries and entrenched ways of doing things. They'll do that and more. They will lie, cheat, kill, undermine democracy and foster political corruption, start wars, you name it.
A lawyer friend of mine explained it to me this way (we were discussing shady behavior in the startup world): "There are people who will beat you up or kill you for a smart phone or the contents of your wallet. What will people do for a million bucks?" I sort of got it. Answer is that people will do everything they'll do for your cell phone or wallet and then some, but they'll do it with far more sophistication and cunning. The higher the stakes the more cunning and otherwise sophisticated the crimes.
BTW, the mention of unionized jobs above highlights that it's not just oil companies and car companies we're talking about here. We are also talking about a massive infrastructure for making, selling, and servicing oil-burner cars that employs minimally tens of millions of people in the US alone. All of that is threatened by simpler, more reliable, grid-connected battery EVs. EVs are downright apocalyptic for entire sectors of the economy. Hundreds of thousands of businesses will die, and millions will find their entire skill sets completely obsolete.
It'd be like if suddenly there were computers faster and cheaper in every way than silicon-based ones but that are programmable through some utterly alien abstraction that has almost nothing in common with present-day programming languages. All your skills are now obsolete. Google is done. Microsoft is done. Etc...
IIUIC, the GP was objecting that car companies have conflicting interests with oil companies on this matter, not that such large conspiracies can't happen given the stakes.
That is, car companies would love to be able to sell cars that don't need oil, and so would not (by themselves) hinder such technologies.
I Still disagree. Theoretically you should be right, but try telling a huge bureaucracy they need to lay off half their employees, managers, account execs, etc. because the whole supply chain is shifting.
Things are not as rational as many think. Huge bureaucracies fight for stasis, as if governed by inertia. It's true even if they are dying. Look at Kodak, Commodore Computer, Radio Shack, etc.
Yeah, nobody would ever "conspire" when trillions upon trillions of dollars in economic activity, millions of entrenched (and often unionized) jobs, hundreds of billions of dollars of sunk cost in infrastructure, the economies of entire nations and regions of nations, and generations of established thinking are at stake. That never happens. The parent poster is just one of those conspiracy nuts.
While perhaps not quite at the same scale as gas-powered cars, I've been up close & personal with two very large industries going from world-dominating to patent-fire-sale in a very short time. Smith Corona used to be the most recognized brand on the planet, dominating the typewriter market alongside IBM; then the PC showed up, "word processing" became a thing, and after a brief attempt to compete by putting databases/spreadsheets/games on typewriters, that industry evaporated fast. Kodak was, subsequently, probably the most recognized brand, dominating photography & imaging; then the digital camera showed up, resellers (using the film/processing/prints model for foot traffic) were confused with customers (actual final buyers), a half-baked attempt at supporting digital was made, and ultimately the photosensitive chemical consumables market evaporated in favor of digital imaging capital equipment.
Core infrastructure industries can, do, have, and will disappear almost overnight. Interesting history.
The problem isn't necessarily that they are in the same league, for the same reasons.
Oil companies don't like electric cars for obvious reasons.
Car companies on the other hand have a different reasons: electric cars hardly require maintenance, and a large part of the money car companies make is by selling replacement parts. Car makers were perfectly happy with the current situation, and the new-one threatens part of their business model, and nobody likes to switch from a working proven business model to a new-one.
However, the difference between car companies and the oil industry is that the latter cannot adapt to this new situation. Car makers could just postpone introducing pure electric cars, or introduce even more complex 'hybrid' solutions under the pretense of being environmentally-friendly, while selling even more replacement parts and maintenance - which in my opinion was always silly.
They could hold the boat off as long as nobody else tried to make a real production-ready electric car. So it's no surprise that it was a new-comer to the market that made it first. Suddenly, a lot of car manufacturers jumped the electric train: Renault, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, ... You really think none of them thought of making an electric car before? GM did, just check out the "who killed the electric car" documentary. I don't believe for a second not every single car maker saw what was inevitably coming, but why kill the goose that lays golden eggs? It would be really hard to explain that to shareholders at a time when the industry is going through a very harsh period.
He does not raise that topic, but as I see it, that's a strength of the article. It questions the utility of fuel cell hydrogen cars entirely on technical grounds, providing good arguments for why that is not a good technology to bet on in the future, from someone that has participated in developing said technology. This gives much more weight to his arguments than if he had started to discuss how this is some plot to keep the petroleum infrastructure in place.
Instead the article gives solid arguments for technical minded people, that can be used in political discussions elsewhere
“As people probably know, I’m not the biggest fan of fuel cells -- I usually call them ‘‘fool cells,’” Musk said this month at Palo Alto, California-based Tesla’s annual meeting. In a speech to employees and enthusiasts at a service center in Germany last year, he called fuel cells “a load of rubbish.”
Here's the dirty little secret of the "hydrogen economy": it's a fossil fuel bait-and-switch.
Renewable hydrogen from water is 2-3x as expensive as making it from natural gas†. It simply can't compete at the pump. People won't pay $9/gal equivalent when $3/gal is available right across the street (or across town, for that matter).
† releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane, and still being wholly unsustainable
The question isn't, "what's the cheapest fuel at the moment?" The question is what's the cheapest carbon-neutral power source that could scale up to meet future global demand?
Daniel Nocera has been arguing for years that using solar energy to split water into hydrogen (ie. the "artifical leaf") is the best strategy. Not even nuclear can scale to meet global demand[1]. But solar devices can be mass manufactured and distributed to the point-of-use (leap-frogging the need for massive infrastructure investment).[2]
1. http://web.mit.edu/professional/pdf/DGN_Daedalus.pdf
> "Delivering this TW-value with nuclear energy would take the construction of eight thousand new nuclear-power plants. In other words, over the next forty-five years, we would have to construct one new nuclear-power plant every two days."
If a 'artificial leaf -> fuel cell -> power' is less efficient than 'photovoltaic cell -> battery -> power' and the cost is comparable, I don't see how your point is valid.
Yes, we'll need a lot of energy, but note that that figure is for the whole world. I think it's doable. Hell, it's the best alternative so 'doability' doesn't really matter, but I guess we'll see how close we'll get (with nuclear+solar). Note that china alone has 200 nuclear plants in project right now [1].
It depends how you're calculating efficiency. If you're talking about solar input to usable output, I contend that efficiency doesn't actually matter that much (at least until we start using a sizable portion of Earth's solar input). What matters more is dollars per watt. Last I checked (several years ago), simple solar heat engines were considerably cheaper per watt than photovoltaics (for generating electricity), even though photovoltaics were considerably more efficient by the former metric.
(writer of the blog here): Eh... hm.... I really don't want to get into conspiracy theories here. To be honest, during the whole Formula Zero championship we got absolutely zero interest from any fossil fuel companies. I haven't posted a good picture of our kart yet, but our biggest sponsors?
- Greenchoice (a grid energy provider with a focus on renewables)
- DSM (plastics manufacturer, mostly because of our innovative use of composite body parts)
- University of Delft
- A whole bunch of mechanical suppliers (Rodac, Swagelok)
- A whole bunch of electronics suppliers (Chroma, Cyner, Betronic)
- A logistics company (van Kaathoven)
Even the organization of Formula Zero, who had a pretty strong foothold in the fossil business through their renewables programmes, didn't get any attention from fossil fuel anything.
And this barely changed when the competition dissolved into Formula Student. Even though this is one of the biggest student competitions in the world, it doesn't get nearly as much sponsorship from big oil as e.g. the Shell Ecomarathon. If they were really interested in getting enthusiastic, almost evangelistic people on the case to promote hydrogen as the next big thing, they would sponsor Formula Student.
The best source of hydrogen comes from the ground. You pump this stuff out - it's long molecules consisting of a carbon backbone covered in hydrogen. You run it through something called a "reformer" to strip the hydrogen off. The reformer could be put on a car, but it'd be more efficient to do it on an industrial scale.
Actually wait, if you just use a combustion process you can get energy from both the hydrogen and the carbon!
AFAIK there are no other great sources of hydrogen.
...yet. But solar and wind power are becoming the cheapest way to generate electricity. Their naturally variable production will mean that there will be periods of excess power available, and finding a good use for that excess would be nice.
But I agree that batteries, not hydrogen, are the way to go.
When you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.
There will never be an excess of solar or wind. Even if you continue the dramatic growth in renewables of the past decade there is utterly no chance that renewables can replace fossil fuels. The gap is too great.
You are living in a dreamworld if you think that the path to a sustainable future can be found through technology alone. Sustainability can only be achieved by dramatically lowering our energy consumption rate.
>There will never be an excess of solar or wind. Even if you continue the dramatic growth in renewables of the past decade there is utterly no chance that renewables can replace fossil fuels. The gap is too great.
1. Wind and solar energy is currently about 3% of the world's supply, and projected to grow at 6-8% per annum (source: BP Energy Outlook 2015, and others), meaning it doubles every 10 years or so... wind and solar may well become the dominant energy in our lifetimes.
2. There already is an excess of wind power, in some places at some times. Where I live (Perth, Australia) wholesale energy prices go negative several times per month, typically at night when the wind is blowing and power demand is low.
> You are living in a dreamworld if you think that the path to a sustainable future can be found through technology alone. Sustainability can only be achieved by dramatically lowering our energy consumption rate.
I disagree completely - lets see what happens say over the next ten years.
And that's not even half of the process. Electrolysis produces gaseous hydrogen, it needs to be cooled down to store as a liquid, which requires a LOT of energy as well.
We know that hydrogen has obstacles when it comes to efficiency... but we also know that batteries have obstacles when it comes to chemical environmental friendliness (primarily manufacture and disposal). Has anyone done a comparison of that aspect of environmental impact?
I seem to recall that synthesizing methane or hydrocarbons from water and atmospheric CO2 isn't that much less efficient than that. Given the efficiency of internal combustion engines versus fuel cells and existing infrastructure you might as well get your carbon neutral transportation that way instead of with hydrogen.
I think that with current technology it's more efficient to store that energy in a battery than in the form of hydrogen (hydrogen is just a storage mechanism).
But it's a storage mechanism with the huge downside of being available from natural gas, so with widespread use of hydrogen we be equivalent to widespread continuous pumping of huge amounts of CO2 into oceans and the atmosphere. Something which most people consider foolish[1].
Most people you know maybe. Most people I know are quite foolish themselves and repeat whatever their favorite TV station has brainwashed them to believe about the global warming.
Of course it's more efficient to use batteries, these are all entry level arguments. Perhaps I misread the audience.
The infrastructure cost is totally different. Electrolysis and immobile storage of hydrogen is very cheap.
We don't have a lot of places where for a significant portion of time when there is excess power from renewables, but we will, in the future.
Edit:
To clarify: if you want to produce say 40% of your yearly energy needs from wind and solar, you have to oversize the production since there are many days they produce very little. That then means there are days when they produce more than is consumed. The excess energy could be used for electrolyzing hydrogen from water.
Note no carbon involved. Also the low efficiency doesn't matter, as the energy is "free". Low cost of energy storage method is much more important in this case.
Any other reasons than "batteries are more efficient" for downvoting?
Where did you get this idea? You have to keep liquid hydrogen extremely chilled, under extreme pressure, and it inevitably leaks out. Compare to pumped water energy storage, which is at ambient temperature and pressure and has similar efficiency to the electrolysis -> fuel-cell cycle.
Stored in any way, it's cheap compared to batteries.
Also many places don't have reservoirs and mountains for pumped storage.
I'm not a big believer in the hydrogen economy, but at least incorrect notions should be corrected ("no source of hydrogen besides natural gas to be seen").
How much additional cost is incurred by converting the hydrogen to methane (combining with atmospheric CO2), then utilizing existing gas infrastructure?
Many of the places that work well for solar panels are far away from the people who use electricity. Hydrogen is a good energy storage solution, to the point that eg. Australia and Saudi Arabia are contemplating commercial operations, nicknamed "solar fuels": http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abe-visit-may-hasten-solar-f...
At that point, you may as well use the power to build hydrocarbon chains out of CO2 and H2O. And as a bonus, we already have the infrastructure for using hydrocarbons as vehicle fuel.
Toyota, which is the largest car manufacturer by volume, have stated repeatedly that they are betting on hydrogen fuel cells rather than batteries.
Given their track record with hybrids, one would think that they know their battery technology.
None of the anti-hydrogen fuel cell articles that have popped up here lately have mentioned this. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Toyota strategy from this point of view.
I am really really curious how anyone is trying to solve the problem of Hydrogen leaking out of literally any container you could put it into. Smallest molecule+huge pressure = leaks out of pure lead canisters. When Mercedes made their Hydrogen-powered concept car they said the whole tank would evaporate naturally within 3 weeks if I remember correctly? As hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air, I cannot see the problem of it leaking into surrounding environment as not being completely critical.
I thought the solution was to have an insulated tank and a refrigeration solution to keep the hydrogen liquid. Of course you will still have "leakage", as some of the hydrogen needs to be spent periodically to run the refrigeration, but this can be minimized with enough insulation.
>It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Toyota strategy from this point of view.
I feel the same. Of course I'm not an expert, but it seems like many of the issues he lists in the opening are things that can be overcome with improvements in technology (and could have been arguments against batteries or even gasoline at points in history).
Meanwhile, the engineers at Toyota are actually trying to make this work:
Toyota's interest is surprising. I saw that recently, and was amazed. I thought everyone had given up on hydrogen as an auto fuel, now that batteries were good enough for electric cars.
Hydrogen is not itself a source of energy. It has to be made from something. Electrolysis of water is more wasteful of energy than putting the same electricity into a battery. Hydrogen from natural gas is possible, but why not just run vehicles on natural gas? That works fine; some bus and truck fleets run on natural gas.
While electricity is "not a source of energy", it does have the two fold benefit of being continuously generated, ans having widely available infrastructure. Hydrogen, while being 91% present in the universe, has only trace amount naturally occuring on earth. So to get it we can chop is off methane (a fossil fuel and already great energy store in it's own right), blast h20 with electricity (which could be fed directly into batteries with minimal loss) or biomass fermentation. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html
When you couple the lack of availability, lack of infrastructure, and inefficiency of production, you are left with a tiny element that is difficult to store and extremely combustable.
It just doesn't make sense vs electricity and batteries.
The difference is that everybody knows that's true of electricity (a shocking number of people think that hydrogen is just somehow... found), electricity infrastructure is way better developed, and electrical generation is considerably more efficient.
He was too nice to go there: Toyota's announced fuel cell car is expensive and has very poor performance. The fundamental problem is that high power fuel cells are very expensive, linear power with cost. And that expense doesn't seem to be changing quickly.
I'd like to believe that Toyota is making rational choices based on their experience with hybrids. But I'm having a hard time believing that.
The world's largest car maker isn't going to bet their entire future on irrational choices.
Clearly they have either something in the R&D pipeline or have consumer research which suggests that EV isn't the future. We can all disagree with their bet but you would be frankly a complete idiot to ever dismiss Toyota's decisions lightly.
GM was once the world's largest automaker, by far.
Two generations of leadership bankrupted the company by making irrational choices. Remind me how being the world's largest automaker means anything in relation to ensuring rationality.
And Toyota? You mean the one that just got done going through years of terrible quality control issues that saw their annual sales drop, their profit plunge off a cliff, and their market cap get chopped in half shedding some $100 billion in value. Clearly a company impervious to irrational decisions.
Are they actually betting their entire future on fuel cells? As far as I know they've only announced one fuel cell model, with limited production, and not yet available. It looks to me like they're continuing to bet their entire future on gasoline and hybrid cars, with a bit of experimentation in the area of fuel cells.
> The fundamental problem is that high power fuel cells are very expensive, linear power with cost.
Does anyone talk about using fuel cells as auxiliary range-extenders to electric vehicles? If they're best at low power, and also highly efficient, they'd should be very good pootling away in the background, topping up a battery from a tank of methanol.
You're right that Toyota's stance on this issue raises a big question about the viability of hydrogen.
On the other hand, the fact that Toyota has such a long and successful history with alternative powertrains, and they still are not selling a hydrogen car makes me think it really doesn't work. If they of all companies haven't done it yet, what chance is there?
To me, the only argument you need is the infrastructure argument. I can go out and buy an electric car today and charge it in my garage and drive it all over the place without having any trouble finding places to charge. In the world of hydrogen, I can probably still count the number of filling stations on this continent on my fingers and toes, and that's not going to change any time soon.
As far as I understand the alternative candidate is Methanol, which can be produced from Hydrogen, which has a relatively high energy density, is liquid at room temperature, and works well with fuel cells.
I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane cheaply.
I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get 60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have Carnot't limit.
Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home. Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe.
Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be able to use it on cars.
But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.
Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn.
IMO, that would depend on the form the waste carbon is produced in, which would influence how it is disposed of. Taking a common hydrocarbon such as propane, and stripping all the hydrogens out of it will produce pure carbon. Last I checked, carbon tends to be a solid at standard pressure and temperature. AFAICT, the concern about carbon pollution is it ending up in the atmosphere in the form of gaseous compounds and messing with the complex feedback loops that regulate the climate. Solid carbon isn't going to do that very well.
"You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn."
You are solving lots of problems:
1-Lots of countries in the world have natural gas(or coal), but very few have oil.Just not depending on the petrodollar is a big plus as it would made countries more self reliant.
2-Reserves of natural gas are way higher than of oil.
3-If efficiency doubles, you need to spend half of it.
4-You can synthesize it artificially if you have C02, water, and energy.
Hydrocarbons are not a monolith. Each different process using each different fuel produces a different mix of exhaust. This is why some (not all!) global warming aficionados prefer natural gas to coal, as they allege the former produces less warming than the latter. (I think we can stipulate that it produces less particulate pollution and smog.)
Make that methanol. It can be produced very cheaply from natural gas, it's easier to store and distribute, and you can even use it in existing casr with a fairly cheap conversion.
Get back to me when a practical, affordable, and go over 300 mile on a charge, battery powered car is here. Currently batteries are not a practical replacement. Currently if you want to hit near 300, you don't quite get there, your in the eighty thousand plus range if that low after common options for your only real choice. Home charging is still a four hour plus affair with the best chargers.
Odd he claims that a hundred mile range isn't available using "safe tanks" when the Honda Clarity has been around six years and does twice that.
Manufacturers seem to be betting on fuel cells because they have many other uses other than cars. They also will have a weight advantage over battery powered cars
Nearly all car trips are way under 300 miles. I believe the P95 trip distance (in the USA) is 30 miles each way. Most people can use an affordable pure-electric car such as the Leaf, e-Golf, or Fiat 500e for most trips. From a system optimization perspective, it's OK if some people (like you) always need the range of an internal combustion engine and everyone else switches to electric.
Your reference to 300 miles is probably based on your most extreme situation when you go on a long trip. If the charging network (DC fast charging, in under 30 mins) is there, 300 miles isn't a problem.
I have a Nissan Leaf with 160 km range and it has never been a problem yet. Home charging is perfectly fine, every morning my car is full. I will never need a faster charger at home. Fast chargers are useful on the roads near highway exits for when you do long trips, much like with gas stations.
95% of the time, my travel distance is under 120 km per day so for only 5% of the time I need to plan a recharge or swap car with my parents, sisters or friends or rent a car for very long trips.
For people with a Chevrolet Volt, they don't even have this issue, when they go on long trips, they simply charge when they can and run on gas for most of the trip.
In my case, I live in a city of 200,000 in the lower 48, and according to Tesla's website, the nearest open access charger is 347 miles away. Now I expect those numbers to go down, but currently, a Tesla would be a toy and not a viable means of transportation given my driving habits. I have no issue with alternative fuels such as electric or HFC, but it it is going to be a very long time before it is viable in low density parts of the country, at least for me.
Lots of people who have yet to own an electric car think like you do. People who've tried it and have home chargers discover:
1) It's really nice that your car is fully charged every morning... sure beats having to visit gas stations on a regular basis. 4 hours is not a big deal if you're asleep.
2) If you want to go long distance, a network like Tesla's supercharger does the trick. (Tesla owners drive SF-LA by stopping twice for 20 minutes, or pay for a 5-minute battery swap once.)
3) While the only long-range electric car today costs 80k+, Chevy and Tesla are both planning on releasing a cheaper long-range car in 2017.
Is it the case that anyone other than cars is betting on hydrogen fuel cells? The only big fuel cells that I've ever heard of are used in the datacenter industry, where Bloom Energy is the main fuel cell company, and they power theirs on hydrocarbons, not hydrogen.
This is an incredibly significant point that continuously gets glossed over in these pro v con lists. I park my car on the street, and that's not particularly uncommon. Should I run an extension cable over the footpath? What if I have to park further away than my cable reaches?
It's not glossed over: That's why I mentioned it. You are not in the sweet spot for this generation of electric cars. If you look around Hacker News, you will find a bunch of people like you complaining that it doesn't work for people like you. Sorry. Electric cars can grow a lot without buyers like you. If they grow to the point that you're a big problem, they'll be pretty common.
The picture of their race-car surprised me. The driver's seat is right next to, and seemingly unshielded from, a stack of 36 "very large ultracapacitors". Are these less likely to explode than other capacitors? Sure they might have electronics designed to keep them within safe operating margins, but for safety I'd trust distance and enclosure more than custom electronics.
However, the actual amount of energy in those ultracaps isn't that much. We're talking a couple tens of kWs or, in other words, all those caps together don't even hold the same energy as one single li-ion cell (18650 size). The energy density is low, thus, the actual safety issue is fairly minor.
That being said, they are in a special Nylon enclosure with polycarbonate sides which provides an effective shield in the case of rupture. But, at the moment that picture was shot we hadn't actually tested that yet :D
TFL (Transport for London) have been running hydrogen buses on a route in London since 2011. According to the link they have 8 in total and the entire route is operated with hydrogen buses.
(author here): this is part 1. I will go into other types of fuel cells in a future part. Hydrogen is the focus of the first two parts just because this is the most mature technology and has actually been used in a couple of (kinda..) production cars.
The threat to the car companies is that all-electric cars could dramatically decrease demand. They hope the complexity of fuel cells will keep demand going a few more decades.
An all-electric car could have as few as a hundred moving parts. A few motors and connecting rods, some suspension componants, fans and a couple manual controls. You just don't need the thousands of tiny metal bits necessary to keep a gas/diesel engine ticking over. Better yet, those parts you do need can be generic. Electric motors are nothing special, nor are batteries. Since they do not mechanically interact they don't need to be as engine/vehicle specific as parts today. Once EVs become the norm, and the teething problems of EVs are worked out, aftermarket replacements will be everywhere.
Build a car from non-rusting carbon fiber, fill it with easily replaceable generic parts, and you've got a recipe for vehicles lasting decades. THAT's what the car companies really fear.
I doubt this is the case. If anything, the reasons you give boil down to: "the core of the car - the moving vehicle bit - will become commodity" and when this happens, cars will become "cars" like phones are now "phones," as in, they're not so much phones anymore as tiny computers that can also make calls. And this will definitely NOT increase their lifetime. If anything, it will decrease it... just like we replace our phones every 2 years.
You know how you swap the powertrain on a Model S? You pull the motor (~70 lbs) and you drop the battery pack. 10 minutes tops.
Sure, you could argue the interior will wear. Big deal. You'll have interiors you can swap on the power sled (battery + suspension + electric motor). Those sleds should last forever.
Bear in mind though the phones are 100x cheaper than cars. If the car prices don't come down drastically, they can certainly not become commoditized like that.
This only happens with phones because of rapidly increasing performance.
The same thing happened with desktop computers, but eventually the performance increases leveled off and people stopped purchasing a new computer ever 2 years.
While that's certainly part of the dynamic, the overall picture is more nuanced. New tech became available - smartphones and tablets as well as much more performant laptops - that replaced desktop purchases. Every two years a new laptop/tablet/smartphone is purchased, if not less.
Also, for phones, size and weight are very important, making modularity more difficult. Similarly, more people build their own desktop PCs than laptops.
It's hard for me to see how the car industry will go. Even today, there are people who keep cars running longer by replacing engines, etc., but most people want to replace the whole care before the drive-train gives out. My wife is ready to replace her 10-year old Honda Accord, not because of any drive-train problems, but because the upholstery is worn out, the AC sometimes blows hot air (I think it's some intermittent problem with the blend door, but it's hard to replicate the problem), it has some little dents and scratches, it makes funny sounds, and she's ready for something new. I can't think how any of those things will change with an electric drive-train.
Most car parts are already commodities anyway though. Example: Toyota and Lexus share almost every single part of the power train, its only the finishings that are different. And most car parts are made by a small number of OEM providers who sell to all the major car companies. Bosch, Denso, and Magna make most of the parts in your car.
This is an interesting idea, but I'd be curious to know what kinds of innovations in car functionality are possible. Also, assuming that you're referring to a kind of planned obsolescence, how can a company convince you to replace the entire vehicle if the moving parts are working fine?
If the computer is broken, replace the computer. Update the self-driving software over the internet. Why would you need to replace the whole car?
Unless, of course, a company tries to integrate points of failure all throughout the body, so that "replacing the computer" of the car or what have you becomes impossible due to the delicate electronic parts. Call me an optimist but at the price of cars today I don't think anyone but the super rich are gullible or decadent enough to fall for something like that instead of a cheaper, more reliable modular alternative. Unless the price of a brand new car becomes similar to that of a new phone, I don't think that future is very likely.
If only it were so simple. You're assuming discrete components. And you're assuming consumer sanity.
"Every protocol the car uses is proprietary and protected under DCMA / etc. There are chips in every component that don't allow the car to start if any component isn't a first-party part."
We're already seeing this sort of thing. Look at the Tesla. Or the Lightning connector from Apple.
as automation increases, cars will likely become more computers than cars. And at that point I imagine the advances in computation and sensing will drive product refreshes. Even battery tech. Which all sound familiar...
Sure some of it can be over-the-air as Tesla has already shown, but the same happens on our current tech yet we still update the hardware pretty frequently. A new, better autopilot may not be able to run on a 3 year old car processor. Could you swap out the cars brains? Sure. Would that be lucrative for the car manufacturer? maybe not.
I think the biggest argument against what I'm proposing is that computers/phones have huge form-factor constraints that favor tightly integrated components - it's why RAM is no longer user replaceable in new, thinner macs. Cars, given their physical size, will likely never face that constraint making the modular approach you suggest much more feasible.
People replace smart phones mainly because they are slow or have become slow, or they want some new feature that isn't available on their current model. As smart phone mature this becomes less common, the technology will get to good enough level, speed, battery life, camera, and people will not feel compelled to replace their smart phones every year.
Hell I bought my Nexus 5 on release and don't feel the need to replace it yet.
No it's not. Cars today are all basically the same and have been for decades. People aren't buying new cars because the components are failing. Generally it's for a new interior, new technologies e.g. support their new iPhone and lifestyle changes.
the average car ownership time is somewhere around 6 years[1]. It feels like 3-year leases are becoming more and more common so I wouldn't be surprised to see this number drop significantly in the future.
I suspect the vast majority of people who drive cars until they fall apart are not buying the car when new, so aside from propping up resale, those users are not terribly relevant to manufacturers.
That "aside from" bit is extremely important. If car resale values drop, new car buyers will on average buy less frequently, and be willing to pay less when they do buy.
For what it's worth, my dad's diesel Nissan Patrol is about 20 years old now and still running fine. I mean, it's a bit clunky, but it does the job - and the 4wd has got me through some snowy roads, too. Good car. Beyond fuel economy, I don't see why that car needs to be decommissioned any time soon.
Any car will last for as long as you're willing to pour money into it. There becomes a breakeven point where maintenance costs increase such that it's cheaper to buy a new car than to keep the old one running. There's a good deal of variety in where that point occurs, due to different models having different reliability and different maintenance costs. Whether you're willing and able to do your own work on the car is also a big factor.
It may not have happened yet for that Patrol, but most cars are at that point by then, and it will probably happen soon on that one.
Lots of cars are kept beyond that breakeven point too, either for reasons of nostalgia, or because it's more palatable to spend your money in a continuous stream of small maintenance costs than to put down a big chunk up front.
Also though we have not had decent electric cars for long we've had electric golf carts for a while and googling the recommended life for accounting purposes it is 5 or 10 years. Just because a vehicle is electric doesn't mean it will last for ever.
Average car life on the road today are pushing 11 years. That's average.
That's actually borderline miracle considering how complex average car is.
With average new car price going pushing $32,000 mark, people would avoid making large purchases like this even every 10 years.
Sure they would love to change it every 5 years, but it's out of the question for most families.
Car companies fear being commoditized, because it's already a very competitive industry.
With global supply chain, computer aided design, parts sharing, and talent poaching, car business is already commoditized than many realize and it is very difficult to differentiate.
Long gone are the days of unique-company know-hows when a Mercedes Benz was literally 3-4 times better than cars that cost 3-4 times less because it offered many things others weren't capable of producing.
More so than electric vehicle, autonomous vehicle is what car companies fear.
I personally think combination of autonomous + electric vehicle will usher in an exciting era, and there is plenty of time for these car companies to adapt.
I'm surprised he didn't mention the volumetric efficiency of compressed hydrogen compared to gasoline when comparing the specific energy density of the two fuels. Yes, you have more than 3x the energy per unit mass, but you have more than 5.5x less energy per unit volume. So instead of a simple 12 gallon gas tank, you need a 66+ gallon pressure vessel adding plenty of weight and taking up volume that would otherwise be useful for cargo or other purposes.
It's the first part in a series of articles.
I'm sure he will mention this, especially considering he hints at the densoty issues right at the beginning.
ex-FC researcher here. pretty much gets it. some other context: it's hydrogen for cars because of the chemistry ie, start-up, shut-down and response times. most FC claims are more of a 'displaced emmissions' scheme than zero-emmissions (unless you're in say, NZ where we have @#$# loads of renewables on our grid). PEM fuel cells are limited to 100 dC due to the hydrogen ion transport via liquid water - that's a problem. at this temp you need exotic metals like Platinum to crack the molecules open for rxn - that's a problem, especially if you're into ethical mining/sourcing. FC cars will need to operate like whiteware or, well cars do now but literally be a small chemical plant. storing hydrogen isn't as easy as people think, it can really screw up 'normal' metals (lone protons are very tricky little @##@s to keep track of). having said all that, FC are fascinating from a tech perspective but IMHO, reasonably sized, high temperature FCs working in highly deregulated markets are about the only place they'll work at all and even then, there's a lot of competition with faster technology iteration rates. i've been reading the same articles since the early-90s - FC car tech is always about 10 years away.
(writer of the blog post here) Interesting, can you divulge a bit more about where and when you did FC research? Was it academic or for a manufacturer?
You are absolutely right; PEM FCs - and I glossed over this in the blog post, might want to readdress it in a future part - are the only portable-enough technology for fuel cells and they inherently come with this ion transport problem and by extension cooling problem that is just unsolvable. Which is essentially the root cause of the complexity of an FCV.
Anyway, I feel your jadedness. Until I actually worked with fuel cells, I had absolutely no idea. Nobody had adequately conveyed to me how these things work and what goes into actually building FCVs. Things finally started to click in my head when we had an electric kart on batteries done within days after completing the frame, yet it took many months until the fuel cell worked. And this was a pretty ready-to-go fuel cell in most respects (Hydrogenics HyPM8).
I was too young back then to appreciate how long FC tech has been 'just around the corner' in the media. Now I understand. I built an FCV 7 1/2 years ago! And they're still pretty much at the same point. I wish things were different because I love the tech, but nature wins this time.
hi, feel free to get in touch via my profile if you want. I did FC research in late 90s first at Monash Uni as a post-doc (i did the MeOH reforming for my colleague who worked on the PEM) and from there moved into a development role at CFCL, one of the longer-living attempts at commercialising high temp FCs (just had a look, they're still going). with my background (heterogeneous catalysis), i mostly worked on the balance of plant (reforming, desulph and catox) and by extension the anode. from there i worked in an electricty trading division here in NZ which completely blew my mind wrt the value proposition of FC technology. Now that i understand the technology and the market, I'm happy to be doing other things. NB this isn't because i don't like FCs (i'm strangely enamored of the three-phase boundary as a topic of research ;-) but because i don't think most people, including those commercialising them really understand how they would be used and i suspect that most activity is mining clean-gen subsidies which has a place but ultimately needs to be a transition, not the end point. maybe their business cases have gotten more sophisticated over the years but i doubt it. as i tell people now - FC tech is exactly the right answer to a very specific question. most people then ask what the question is... ;-)
I thought fuel cells were debunked 10 years ago? The sad part is that power distribution and storage for wind isn't keeping up. Here in Minnesota, Buffalo Ridge Power (BR is one of the windiest places in the nation), many of the multi-megawatt turbines are forced to idle down because there's no place for the power to go. A logical place to put this power is in fuel cells.
Most discussions of FC and BEV miss the most important factor that will determine which one succeeds in the marketplace. Comparing engine efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this single factor. And that factor is infrastructure.
BEV supporters often assume that everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a garage. But the reality is far from this. Millions live in apartments/condos with parking structures that contain hundreds or even thousands of cars. And there may be a trend of the younger generations favoring denser urban living instead of the suburban living of past generations. Installing a few charging ports in a parking structure that has hundreds of parking spots is not a realistic solution. Will the owners of apartments and condos be willing to install hundreds of electric plugs into parking structures? I think the answer is either no, or they would do it too slowly to determine the FC vs BEV fight.
So for the millions in this situation, there are only these options for the future. BEV battery swapping stations vs Hydrogen stations. Supercharger is too slow compared to hydrogen filling. Only battery swapping is comparable. Which infrastructure is built more quickly will determine if FC or BEV wins. Energy efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this.
Why would presume that owners would not want to install electric car chargers in their garages if there was demand for it? Presumably in such a situation you would be expected to pay for the electricity in the same way you pay for your gas, so installing chargers would actually make money. The building owners would have to hate money to not want to install electric car chargers in their buildings.
Also, for many urban dwellers the choice is academic because they choose to not own a car at all. Instead using car sharing services these services would have no problem ensuring that their cars get charging ports.
These things aren't free. An apartment with a parking garage space with an electric car charger will certainly cost more than one without a charger, and WAY more than one without the parking space at all. If this doesn't translate directly into higher rents then the building owners won't want to do it.
Making sure a shared car is charged sounds like a nightmare. The whole point of car sharing is the cars get more use and spend less time parked. Considering how long it takes to charge some of these rigs, I'm surprised that the sharing companies have adopted them. My car share offers three models of battery-electric vehicle, one of them is the ridiculous Scion that only goes 35 miles between charges. Personally I don't understand how the economics works on that.
These things nearly are free if they'll last (and are used) for 20 years.
These things are pretty inexpensive if you already have conduit and room on a power panel.
That's why my local city requires new construction, from single-family up to big apartment buildings, to pre-install conduit etc. such that it's not bad to subsequently add chargers to garages and parking areas. It's pretty cheap to do that at construction time; for retrofitting, the argument revolves around how to amortize the (admittedly larger) cost over the lifetime of the asset.
My city even has street parking and public garages with chargers.
These are not hard problems to solve. The main unknown is whether chargers are going to be actively used for a long time or not.
Paris already has a very successful shared electric car device called Autolib. I use it at least once a week, and it's brilliant. The scheme works because the battery has a range of about 150km, but the typical trip is only 5-10km. The systemight not work as well in less dense cities.
Wow, this is interesting: they use a car that I haven't seen mentioned before. It has a range a bit longer than the Leaf. In low-speed urban driving it's good for 250km range, or 150km on the highway. Given that it's mostly used for short trips in cities, that's enough that it will probably last an entire day, and then charge fully overnight.
Fuel cells require massive infrastructure before a single FC car can be sold openly. BEV can saturate the market of people with access to parking and power right now - and that's not a small market.
The FC vs BEV fight doesn't start when FC enters the market, it's already on and FC is losing.
There are fuel cells that don't require pure hydrogen, they can use light hydrocarbons such as methane or alcohol both of which have a much more mature distribution infrastructure in place.
Refilling and storage issues are being worked on by using ethanol instead of H2 (look up Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell). It is considered better than methanol due to a much lower toxicity and higher energy density but the tech is just not there yet. This is considered to be the future for medium size batteries (small vehicles, hand machinery etc.).
Beyond that, what is wrong with green crude-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) as a medium of energy storage?
It is being produced right now in small quantities after refining green crude made from algae grown into water/sunlight (carbon neutral form).
Some advantages:
* doesn't compete with arable land like corn ethanol
* can be grown in salt water
* no oxygen atoms to oxide your tank/engine
* much less sulfurs or combustion by-products than fossil-crude refined fuels
* can be refined using existing infrastructure
* can be distributed using existing infrastructure
* can be used in existing vehicles and machinery
* recycling combustion engines is much less energy-intensive than batteries
174 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 232 ms ] threadTurbines do have some deployment issues such as outputing enough nitrogen oxides to generate a cloud, etc. But in a hybrid system, they're pretty cool.
Basically you're taking an electric car and a very small electric company natgas peaking plant and putting it in the trunk with a charger.
There are less than 50,000 miles of interstate highways in the US. If we added a 3rd rail or similar system for powering cars as they traveled range and efficiency quickly become a non issue.
Granted, the interstate highway system would just be the start eventually you would want to cover just about every road. Not to mention safety concerns etc, but it's a real option.
It reminds me of a young child asking:
"If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns.
Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns
Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles.
Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections.
That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply)
Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you?
PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
* Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass.
* The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this.
* This quote from wikipedia:
> However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva...
* And of course just the overall scale.
Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true.
As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway.
* The distances involved...
There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective.
"In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction."
3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems.
At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.
I am continually amazed at the angst it causes many people when you suggest that the current American way of life will have to change. When you say that in 20 years people won't be driving everywhere a lot of folks really freak out.
The arithmetic plainly indicates we simply will not all be driving or riding in cars regularly in the future. Hydrogen vs. lithium batteries vs. gasoline doesn't even enter into it. There simply won't be the joules for everyone to get about that way. People will be walking, bicycling, and riding boring old 19th century speed trains. Peak Oil is now-ish and nothing else is set to provide the joules necessary to power personal vehicles on the current scale, regardless of vehicle power plants.
However, like Tesla's Supercharger idea perhaps a targeted rollout of functionality to connect major centers combined with the existing charging infrastructure would settle the "range anxiety" issues.
[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/ch...
The goal is to provide a seemingly credible (but in reality completely unworkable) clean alternative so politicians, car companies and oil companies together can work "towards a clean future" while deep down knowing that it's a stalling tactic to keep the petroleum infrastructure in place.
Any fuel cell funding sucks the oxygen from the real threats to the industry: Industrial/Consumer solar and BEV (battery electric vehicles).
It's analogous to "clean coal": http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths
I'd guess car manufacturers have two economic interests: 1) The less energy for automobiles costs, the more people will use them, and 2) the less economic harm there is from climate change, the more people will use cars.
I could see #1 motivating auto manufacturers to support the oil industry, and #2 motivating them to support clean energy.
Are the energy costs for electric cars higher than those for traditional cars? I thought they were significantly lower.
I don't know if car manufacturers are in league with big oil per se, but I have heard it argued convincingly that the repair and maintenance costs that are implied by the IC engine and its infrastructure in the car are a huge source of revenue for the entire auto ecosystem, and they just cannot give that up.
It's much more subtle than that. I grew up around cars. My dad races them as his hobby. We restored a few, and spent plenty of time wrenching on a car together. It was one of the highlights of my childhood. It's still one of the things we often talk about when we see each other. I'm sure it's the reason I got a mechanical engineering degree.
When I think back to those times, a bunch of fragments of memories pop up. The sound a racing motor makes the first time you fire it up. The smell of gasoline vs diesel vs oil vs brake fluid vs transmission fluid. The grease on your hands. Knowing all the components under the hood, how they go together. How to start a cold engine with a flakey carb. How to fix a flooded engine.
There is real nostalgia around cars, and that means gasoline/diesel engines. I can barely enjoy modern cars with their plastic engine fairings and electronic controls, much less an electric car with just batteries and motors. I love building robots, and I'm a professional programmer now, but electric cars just don't excite me from the perspective of working on them. (Driving a Tesla is a different story).
Layer on top of that nostalgia, which I believe most of the people that work in the auto industry have, is the reality of 100+ years of IC engine expertise. If electric cars are the future, how much advantage does Ford have over a startup? Certainly some, but not nearly as much as they do in gasoline engines. Every bit of the drive train is completely different in an electric car. Not only are you throwing out the expertise in engines, but transmissions and differentials as well.
I can imagine that makes their position less defendable.
What you've written I agree with, but it's a long way off from the OP's conspiracy. Cars have been around a long time, so the affinity is natural result all that history.
It will change. I'm also a "car guy". I recently entered into four-year lease on a new vehicle, and on the drive home I told my significant other it's probable that this will be the last ICE we ever buy (and perhaps the last car that we actually drive off the lot ourselves). It's funny to think about.
Sure. And as a petrolhead, I will miss IC engines when they go. But it's a long leap from "implicit affection for IC engines" to "strategically presenting a build-to-fail engine technology to discredit alternative fuel".
When I think back... I think back to sitting on top of a horse, as we make a journey together. The feel of his hair in your hands as you lean forward. The fun of sitting back while he eats grass. So relaxing and with a sense of bonding.
I mean... who would replace a living breathing horse, who is part of the family, with a smelly machine that breaks?
There is real nostalgia around horses. And phone booths. and Sony Walkman. and CRTs. And... and... and... .. .
People hate change. Just because "cars = gas/diesel" to YOU doesn't mean that a new generation of kids won't break their teeth, and learn to be engineers, with electric or hydrogen or whatever....
Likewise, once incumbent car manufacturers can't promote some of the things that people fondly associate with cars, new alternative car companies are better able to put them out of business.
The best point in your comment is that alternative car companies may be able to generate some of that nostalgia early enough to use it against incumbents - I think this is possible and that for some people, they will be happy to trade petroleum good feelings for electric good feelings while petroleum-based cars are still a sizeable part of the market.
The issue is whether or not the "crown jewels" of EVs will be worth so much (ie, via patented features or trade secrets) that this will allow companies to extract rents. The problem with this approach is that rents only come out from high prices--and this is what tesla is doing--and this won't lead to enough revenues to replicate the infrastrucure of the current (behemoth) chassis makers.
So I don't think its quite cut and dry that upstarts will win out (winner take all) in the long run. It seems most likely whoever wins will M&A their way to global scale by integrating into the existing business structure of the global auto industry.
Look at facebook--they are only making money by becoming the next generation of Madison Avenue. They didn't really change the world in that regards, they simply integrated into the existing circulation system of the media-industrial complex.
Madison avenue doesn't care which blinking screed you stare at for four to eight hours a day, they just want to print money.
Similarly, the auto industry couldn't care less about whether or not you drive a clean or petrol motor. Seriously, all they care about is that you take out a loan from them to buy a box of metal that costs 30 to 50k and make your payments on time.
In other words, the business model will not really change.
The issueas about fly-by wire and the inability to work on your car are already here. It costs $700 dollars to change the battery on a BMW, because its locked down by SW. But that is a superficial level of business model change. Upgrades and spare parts will always be a busienesss line, but the core sale will always revolve around ownership of a block of metal or composites that locks you into the need to maintain it.
The more fururistic car companies of tomorrow are likely going to be something like uber or zip car combined with driverless cars and provided on-demand. But until you get to a system that fundamentally changes the distribution of transportation assets and the service model on that scale, the existing players will not really be obsolete.
Consider the costs that companies such as (solely as) Tesla are having to front to get a refueling infrastructure in place to make their cars considerable.
This is a large portion of why families can't really get one of these vehicles. If I can't take this thing on a family trip, there is no point in even trying to get one.
In such a situation having the paradigm shift happen in the first place is bad news for you, especially if you're a leader of the old paradigm. Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were all laughing off the iPhone in the first few years, so people would stay away from them and keep buying their "old stuff".
So yeah, I can very much see how companies like Toyota and whoever else is promoting the totally unworkable fuel cell car "revolution" would be in bed with the oil industry. They'd rather push for something that barely changes the status quo, but at the same time is seen as "revolutionary" in the media, than go into electric cars.
1 - Nobody will buy alternative fueled cars
2 - They must appear to support ecologically friendly energy sources
Yeah, nobody would ever "conspire" when trillions upon trillions of dollars in economic activity, millions of entrenched (and often unionized) jobs, hundreds of billions of dollars of sunk cost in infrastructure, the economies of entire nations and regions of nations, and generations of established thinking are at stake. That never happens. The parent poster is just one of those conspiracy nuts.
Sorry for the combative tone, but I'm a bit tired of seeing this kind of naivete. Of course people will conspire and engage in stalling and other underhanded political tactics to stop things that are a threat to huge industries and entrenched ways of doing things. They'll do that and more. They will lie, cheat, kill, undermine democracy and foster political corruption, start wars, you name it.
A lawyer friend of mine explained it to me this way (we were discussing shady behavior in the startup world): "There are people who will beat you up or kill you for a smart phone or the contents of your wallet. What will people do for a million bucks?" I sort of got it. Answer is that people will do everything they'll do for your cell phone or wallet and then some, but they'll do it with far more sophistication and cunning. The higher the stakes the more cunning and otherwise sophisticated the crimes.
BTW, the mention of unionized jobs above highlights that it's not just oil companies and car companies we're talking about here. We are also talking about a massive infrastructure for making, selling, and servicing oil-burner cars that employs minimally tens of millions of people in the US alone. All of that is threatened by simpler, more reliable, grid-connected battery EVs. EVs are downright apocalyptic for entire sectors of the economy. Hundreds of thousands of businesses will die, and millions will find their entire skill sets completely obsolete.
It'd be like if suddenly there were computers faster and cheaper in every way than silicon-based ones but that are programmable through some utterly alien abstraction that has almost nothing in common with present-day programming languages. All your skills are now obsolete. Google is done. Microsoft is done. Etc...
That is, car companies would love to be able to sell cars that don't need oil, and so would not (by themselves) hinder such technologies.
Things are not as rational as many think. Huge bureaucracies fight for stasis, as if governed by inertia. It's true even if they are dying. Look at Kodak, Commodore Computer, Radio Shack, etc.
While perhaps not quite at the same scale as gas-powered cars, I've been up close & personal with two very large industries going from world-dominating to patent-fire-sale in a very short time. Smith Corona used to be the most recognized brand on the planet, dominating the typewriter market alongside IBM; then the PC showed up, "word processing" became a thing, and after a brief attempt to compete by putting databases/spreadsheets/games on typewriters, that industry evaporated fast. Kodak was, subsequently, probably the most recognized brand, dominating photography & imaging; then the digital camera showed up, resellers (using the film/processing/prints model for foot traffic) were confused with customers (actual final buyers), a half-baked attempt at supporting digital was made, and ultimately the photosensitive chemical consumables market evaporated in favor of digital imaging capital equipment.
Core infrastructure industries can, do, have, and will disappear almost overnight. Interesting history.
Oil companies don't like electric cars for obvious reasons.
Car companies on the other hand have a different reasons: electric cars hardly require maintenance, and a large part of the money car companies make is by selling replacement parts. Car makers were perfectly happy with the current situation, and the new-one threatens part of their business model, and nobody likes to switch from a working proven business model to a new-one.
However, the difference between car companies and the oil industry is that the latter cannot adapt to this new situation. Car makers could just postpone introducing pure electric cars, or introduce even more complex 'hybrid' solutions under the pretense of being environmentally-friendly, while selling even more replacement parts and maintenance - which in my opinion was always silly.
They could hold the boat off as long as nobody else tried to make a real production-ready electric car. So it's no surprise that it was a new-comer to the market that made it first. Suddenly, a lot of car manufacturers jumped the electric train: Renault, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, ... You really think none of them thought of making an electric car before? GM did, just check out the "who killed the electric car" documentary. I don't believe for a second not every single car maker saw what was inevitably coming, but why kill the goose that lays golden eggs? It would be really hard to explain that to shareholders at a time when the industry is going through a very harsh period.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-25/toyota-to-...
“As people probably know, I’m not the biggest fan of fuel cells -- I usually call them ‘‘fool cells,’” Musk said this month at Palo Alto, California-based Tesla’s annual meeting. In a speech to employees and enthusiasts at a service center in Germany last year, he called fuel cells “a load of rubbish.”
Renewable hydrogen from water is 2-3x as expensive as making it from natural gas†. It simply can't compete at the pump. People won't pay $9/gal equivalent when $3/gal is available right across the street (or across town, for that matter).
† releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane, and still being wholly unsustainable
Daniel Nocera has been arguing for years that using solar energy to split water into hydrogen (ie. the "artifical leaf") is the best strategy. Not even nuclear can scale to meet global demand[1]. But solar devices can be mass manufactured and distributed to the point-of-use (leap-frogging the need for massive infrastructure investment).[2]
1. http://web.mit.edu/professional/pdf/DGN_Daedalus.pdf > "Delivering this TW-value with nuclear energy would take the construction of eight thousand new nuclear-power plants. In other words, over the next forty-five years, we would have to construct one new nuclear-power plant every two days."
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12VPW-wS8yc
Yes, we'll need a lot of energy, but note that that figure is for the whole world. I think it's doable. Hell, it's the best alternative so 'doability' doesn't really matter, but I guess we'll see how close we'll get (with nuclear+solar). Note that china alone has 200 nuclear plants in project right now [1].
[1] http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/china-could-build-200-nucle...
Even the organization of Formula Zero, who had a pretty strong foothold in the fossil business through their renewables programmes, didn't get any attention from fossil fuel anything.
And this barely changed when the competition dissolved into Formula Student. Even though this is one of the biggest student competitions in the world, it doesn't get nearly as much sponsorship from big oil as e.g. the Shell Ecomarathon. If they were really interested in getting enthusiastic, almost evangelistic people on the case to promote hydrogen as the next big thing, they would sponsor Formula Student.
Actually wait, if you just use a combustion process you can get energy from both the hydrogen and the carbon!
AFAIK there are no other great sources of hydrogen.
Additionally, if there was capacity why not use it to charge lithium batteries?
Cost, weight, and refueling/recharge. Lithium batteries are expensive, heavy, and have a limited lifespan.
I think batteries will win out, but it is not a certainty. Toyota seems to think Fuel cells will win.
...yet. But solar and wind power are becoming the cheapest way to generate electricity. Their naturally variable production will mean that there will be periods of excess power available, and finding a good use for that excess would be nice.
But I agree that batteries, not hydrogen, are the way to go.
There will never be an excess of solar or wind. Even if you continue the dramatic growth in renewables of the past decade there is utterly no chance that renewables can replace fossil fuels. The gap is too great.
You are living in a dreamworld if you think that the path to a sustainable future can be found through technology alone. Sustainability can only be achieved by dramatically lowering our energy consumption rate.
1. Wind and solar energy is currently about 3% of the world's supply, and projected to grow at 6-8% per annum (source: BP Energy Outlook 2015, and others), meaning it doubles every 10 years or so... wind and solar may well become the dominant energy in our lifetimes.
2. There already is an excess of wind power, in some places at some times. Where I live (Perth, Australia) wholesale energy prices go negative several times per month, typically at night when the wind is blowing and power demand is low.
> You are living in a dreamworld if you think that the path to a sustainable future can be found through technology alone. Sustainability can only be achieved by dramatically lowering our energy consumption rate.
I disagree completely - lets see what happens say over the next ten years.
But it's a storage mechanism with the huge downside of being available from natural gas, so with widespread use of hydrogen we be equivalent to widespread continuous pumping of huge amounts of CO2 into oceans and the atmosphere. Something which most people consider foolish[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
The infrastructure cost is totally different. Electrolysis and immobile storage of hydrogen is very cheap.
We don't have a lot of places where for a significant portion of time when there is excess power from renewables, but we will, in the future.
Edit: To clarify: if you want to produce say 40% of your yearly energy needs from wind and solar, you have to oversize the production since there are many days they produce very little. That then means there are days when they produce more than is consumed. The excess energy could be used for electrolyzing hydrogen from water.
Note no carbon involved. Also the low efficiency doesn't matter, as the energy is "free". Low cost of energy storage method is much more important in this case.
Any other reasons than "batteries are more efficient" for downvoting?
Where did you get this idea? You have to keep liquid hydrogen extremely chilled, under extreme pressure, and it inevitably leaks out. Compare to pumped water energy storage, which is at ambient temperature and pressure and has similar efficiency to the electrolysis -> fuel-cell cycle.
Also many places don't have reservoirs and mountains for pumped storage.
I'm not a big believer in the hydrogen economy, but at least incorrect notions should be corrected ("no source of hydrogen besides natural gas to be seen").
Given their track record with hybrids, one would think that they know their battery technology.
None of the anti-hydrogen fuel cell articles that have popped up here lately have mentioned this. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the Toyota strategy from this point of view.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nanobeads-could-store-liqu...
http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313157701/why-those-tiny-micro...
I feel the same. Of course I'm not an expert, but it seems like many of the issues he lists in the opening are things that can be overcome with improvements in technology (and could have been arguments against batteries or even gasoline at points in history).
Meanwhile, the engineers at Toyota are actually trying to make this work:
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_techno...
Hydrogen is not itself a source of energy. It has to be made from something. Electrolysis of water is more wasteful of energy than putting the same electricity into a battery. Hydrogen from natural gas is possible, but why not just run vehicles on natural gas? That works fine; some bus and truck fleets run on natural gas.
(The same can be said of both electricity and batteries)
When you couple the lack of availability, lack of infrastructure, and inefficiency of production, you are left with a tiny element that is difficult to store and extremely combustable.
It just doesn't make sense vs electricity and batteries.
I'd like to believe that Toyota is making rational choices based on their experience with hybrids. But I'm having a hard time believing that.
Clearly they have either something in the R&D pipeline or have consumer research which suggests that EV isn't the future. We can all disagree with their bet but you would be frankly a complete idiot to ever dismiss Toyota's decisions lightly.
Two generations of leadership bankrupted the company by making irrational choices. Remind me how being the world's largest automaker means anything in relation to ensuring rationality.
And Toyota? You mean the one that just got done going through years of terrible quality control issues that saw their annual sales drop, their profit plunge off a cliff, and their market cap get chopped in half shedding some $100 billion in value. Clearly a company impervious to irrational decisions.
The world largest cellphone maker did.
Does anyone talk about using fuel cells as auxiliary range-extenders to electric vehicles? If they're best at low power, and also highly efficient, they'd should be very good pootling away in the background, topping up a battery from a tank of methanol.
On the other hand, the fact that Toyota has such a long and successful history with alternative powertrains, and they still are not selling a hydrogen car makes me think it really doesn't work. If they of all companies haven't done it yet, what chance is there?
To me, the only argument you need is the infrastructure argument. I can go out and buy an electric car today and charge it in my garage and drive it all over the place without having any trouble finding places to charge. In the world of hydrogen, I can probably still count the number of filling stations on this continent on my fingers and toes, and that's not going to change any time soon.
But methane is not. Can fuel cells work with methane? I think so, and if they don't work well, then that's where the research should be directed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get 60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have Carnot't limit.
Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home. Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe.
Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be able to use it on cars.
But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.
Not really. A fuel cell converts an hydrocarbon to C02. That's it.
A thermal engine like a diesel creates particles like this: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html
And the high temperatures creates nitrogen oxides that create acid rain.
When you start a car, the catalyst converter needs 5 to 10 minutes to get enough temperature for starting to work.
You are solving lots of problems:
1-Lots of countries in the world have natural gas(or coal), but very few have oil.Just not depending on the petrodollar is a big plus as it would made countries more self reliant.
2-Reserves of natural gas are way higher than of oil.
3-If efficiency doubles, you need to spend half of it.
4-You can synthesize it artificially if you have C02, water, and energy.
Odd he claims that a hundred mile range isn't available using "safe tanks" when the Honda Clarity has been around six years and does twice that.
Manufacturers seem to be betting on fuel cells because they have many other uses other than cars. They also will have a weight advantage over battery powered cars
Your reference to 300 miles is probably based on your most extreme situation when you go on a long trip. If the charging network (DC fast charging, in under 30 mins) is there, 300 miles isn't a problem.
I have a Nissan Leaf with 160 km range and it has never been a problem yet. Home charging is perfectly fine, every morning my car is full. I will never need a faster charger at home. Fast chargers are useful on the roads near highway exits for when you do long trips, much like with gas stations.
95% of the time, my travel distance is under 120 km per day so for only 5% of the time I need to plan a recharge or swap car with my parents, sisters or friends or rent a car for very long trips.
For people with a Chevrolet Volt, they don't even have this issue, when they go on long trips, they simply charge when they can and run on gas for most of the trip.
Personally, I am fine with current technology.
And yes, central and the lower states of US are behind in term of sales AND charging options available.
Hopefully this will change!
1) It's really nice that your car is fully charged every morning... sure beats having to visit gas stations on a regular basis. 4 hours is not a big deal if you're asleep.
2) If you want to go long distance, a network like Tesla's supercharger does the trick. (Tesla owners drive SF-LA by stopping twice for 20 minutes, or pay for a 5-minute battery swap once.)
3) While the only long-range electric car today costs 80k+, Chevy and Tesla are both planning on releasing a cheaper long-range car in 2017.
Is it the case that anyone other than cars is betting on hydrogen fuel cells? The only big fuel cells that I've ever heard of are used in the datacenter industry, where Bloom Energy is the main fuel cell company, and they power theirs on hydrocarbons, not hydrogen.
This is an incredibly significant point that continuously gets glossed over in these pro v con lists. I park my car on the street, and that's not particularly uncommon. Should I run an extension cable over the footpath? What if I have to park further away than my cable reaches?
However, the actual amount of energy in those ultracaps isn't that much. We're talking a couple tens of kWs or, in other words, all those caps together don't even hold the same energy as one single li-ion cell (18650 size). The energy density is low, thus, the actual safety issue is fairly minor.
That being said, they are in a special Nylon enclosure with polycarbonate sides which provides an effective shield in the case of rupture. But, at the moment that picture was shot we hadn't actually tested that yet :D
Again, students.
They have been in operation since 2013, so they seem to work pretty well.
http://www.hydrogenlondon.org/projects/london-hydrogen-bus-p...
http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-gb/newsmedia/_layo...
An all-electric car could have as few as a hundred moving parts. A few motors and connecting rods, some suspension componants, fans and a couple manual controls. You just don't need the thousands of tiny metal bits necessary to keep a gas/diesel engine ticking over. Better yet, those parts you do need can be generic. Electric motors are nothing special, nor are batteries. Since they do not mechanically interact they don't need to be as engine/vehicle specific as parts today. Once EVs become the norm, and the teething problems of EVs are worked out, aftermarket replacements will be everywhere.
Build a car from non-rusting carbon fiber, fill it with easily replaceable generic parts, and you've got a recipe for vehicles lasting decades. THAT's what the car companies really fear.
Sure, you could argue the interior will wear. Big deal. You'll have interiors you can swap on the power sled (battery + suspension + electric motor). Those sleds should last forever.
The same thing happened with desktop computers, but eventually the performance increases leveled off and people stopped purchasing a new computer ever 2 years.
It's hard for me to see how the car industry will go. Even today, there are people who keep cars running longer by replacing engines, etc., but most people want to replace the whole care before the drive-train gives out. My wife is ready to replace her 10-year old Honda Accord, not because of any drive-train problems, but because the upholstery is worn out, the AC sometimes blows hot air (I think it's some intermittent problem with the blend door, but it's hard to replicate the problem), it has some little dents and scratches, it makes funny sounds, and she's ready for something new. I can't think how any of those things will change with an electric drive-train.
If the computer is broken, replace the computer. Update the self-driving software over the internet. Why would you need to replace the whole car?
Unless, of course, a company tries to integrate points of failure all throughout the body, so that "replacing the computer" of the car or what have you becomes impossible due to the delicate electronic parts. Call me an optimist but at the price of cars today I don't think anyone but the super rich are gullible or decadent enough to fall for something like that instead of a cheaper, more reliable modular alternative. Unless the price of a brand new car becomes similar to that of a new phone, I don't think that future is very likely.
"Every protocol the car uses is proprietary and protected under DCMA / etc. There are chips in every component that don't allow the car to start if any component isn't a first-party part."
We're already seeing this sort of thing. Look at the Tesla. Or the Lightning connector from Apple.
[1]http://forum.roadfly.com/archive/index.php/t-8237302.html?s=...
Sure some of it can be over-the-air as Tesla has already shown, but the same happens on our current tech yet we still update the hardware pretty frequently. A new, better autopilot may not be able to run on a 3 year old car processor. Could you swap out the cars brains? Sure. Would that be lucrative for the car manufacturer? maybe not.
I think the biggest argument against what I'm proposing is that computers/phones have huge form-factor constraints that favor tightly integrated components - it's why RAM is no longer user replaceable in new, thinner macs. Cars, given their physical size, will likely never face that constraint making the modular approach you suggest much more feasible.
Hell I bought my Nexus 5 on release and don't feel the need to replace it yet.
No it's not. Cars today are all basically the same and have been for decades. People aren't buying new cars because the components are failing. Generally it's for a new interior, new technologies e.g. support their new iPhone and lifestyle changes.
[1] http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/average-length-of...)
So today's cars already last for "decades".
It may not have happened yet for that Patrol, but most cars are at that point by then, and it will probably happen soon on that one.
Lots of cars are kept beyond that breakeven point too, either for reasons of nostalgia, or because it's more palatable to spend your money in a continuous stream of small maintenance costs than to put down a big chunk up front.
That's actually borderline miracle considering how complex average car is.
With average new car price going pushing $32,000 mark, people would avoid making large purchases like this even every 10 years.
Sure they would love to change it every 5 years, but it's out of the question for most families.
Car companies fear being commoditized, because it's already a very competitive industry.
With global supply chain, computer aided design, parts sharing, and talent poaching, car business is already commoditized than many realize and it is very difficult to differentiate.
Long gone are the days of unique-company know-hows when a Mercedes Benz was literally 3-4 times better than cars that cost 3-4 times less because it offered many things others weren't capable of producing.
More so than electric vehicle, autonomous vehicle is what car companies fear.
I personally think combination of autonomous + electric vehicle will usher in an exciting era, and there is plenty of time for these car companies to adapt.
You are absolutely right; PEM FCs - and I glossed over this in the blog post, might want to readdress it in a future part - are the only portable-enough technology for fuel cells and they inherently come with this ion transport problem and by extension cooling problem that is just unsolvable. Which is essentially the root cause of the complexity of an FCV.
Anyway, I feel your jadedness. Until I actually worked with fuel cells, I had absolutely no idea. Nobody had adequately conveyed to me how these things work and what goes into actually building FCVs. Things finally started to click in my head when we had an electric kart on batteries done within days after completing the frame, yet it took many months until the fuel cell worked. And this was a pretty ready-to-go fuel cell in most respects (Hydrogenics HyPM8).
I was too young back then to appreciate how long FC tech has been 'just around the corner' in the media. Now I understand. I built an FCV 7 1/2 years ago! And they're still pretty much at the same point. I wish things were different because I love the tech, but nature wins this time.
BEV supporters often assume that everyone lives in a nice suburban home with a garage. But the reality is far from this. Millions live in apartments/condos with parking structures that contain hundreds or even thousands of cars. And there may be a trend of the younger generations favoring denser urban living instead of the suburban living of past generations. Installing a few charging ports in a parking structure that has hundreds of parking spots is not a realistic solution. Will the owners of apartments and condos be willing to install hundreds of electric plugs into parking structures? I think the answer is either no, or they would do it too slowly to determine the FC vs BEV fight.
So for the millions in this situation, there are only these options for the future. BEV battery swapping stations vs Hydrogen stations. Supercharger is too slow compared to hydrogen filling. Only battery swapping is comparable. Which infrastructure is built more quickly will determine if FC or BEV wins. Energy efficiency, pollution, none of that matters compared to this.
Also, for many urban dwellers the choice is academic because they choose to not own a car at all. Instead using car sharing services these services would have no problem ensuring that their cars get charging ports.
Making sure a shared car is charged sounds like a nightmare. The whole point of car sharing is the cars get more use and spend less time parked. Considering how long it takes to charge some of these rigs, I'm surprised that the sharing companies have adopted them. My car share offers three models of battery-electric vehicle, one of them is the ridiculous Scion that only goes 35 miles between charges. Personally I don't understand how the economics works on that.
These things are pretty inexpensive if you already have conduit and room on a power panel.
That's why my local city requires new construction, from single-family up to big apartment buildings, to pre-install conduit etc. such that it's not bad to subsequently add chargers to garages and parking areas. It's pretty cheap to do that at construction time; for retrofitting, the argument revolves around how to amortize the (admittedly larger) cost over the lifetime of the asset.
My city even has street parking and public garages with chargers.
These are not hard problems to solve. The main unknown is whether chargers are going to be actively used for a long time or not.
The FC vs BEV fight doesn't start when FC enters the market, it's already on and FC is losing.
Well, at the moment they can sell to the people who do live like that. If adoption takes off they could then build more infrastructure.
Beyond that, what is wrong with green crude-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) as a medium of energy storage?
It is being produced right now in small quantities after refining green crude made from algae grown into water/sunlight (carbon neutral form).
Some advantages: