With a density of only 0.08g/ml, storing liquid hydrogen takes up a lot of space.
Still, looks like Hyundai believe that hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars have a future - and not using liquid hydrogen:
"At the rear of the vehicle are the three 13.8-gallon (52.2L) hydrogen storage tanks...The storage tanks can hold a total of 13.9 pounds (6.3kg) of hydrogen at 10,000psi, which together with its aerodynamic design gives the Blue-trim Nexo a range of 380 miles (611km)"
Interesting that by using 10000psi they get about half the mass of hydrogen stored that they would using liquid hydrogen in the same volume. I assume the thicker and heavier tanks have an advantage over lighter, insulated tanks that would be required for liquid hydrogen. Any idea what the loss over time is for liquid hydrogen in insulated tanks?
el cell in the car to generate electricity, avoiding the power waste implic it in the Carnot cycle.
tank of liquid hydrogen can store a lot more energy much more cheaply than a comparable heap of batteries.
ic cars, the heap of batteries doing nothing in parked cars would be big en ough to hold at least half a days worth of national energy consumption/prod uction.
r to pay Paul. The whole point of the battery in a car is to power the car . Not many cars are sitting around waiting for the odd chance they are nee ded.
The average car spends 95% of it's time parked. The weak version of the car batteries as network backup stops the cars charging if the generators are heavily loaded - cloud passing over the solar cells.
Few cars are going to be taken on a trip long enough to empty the battery, so - in most cases - it would be practical steal some charge from a fully c harged battery to make up a brief network shortfall.
The whole point of the battery is to power the car when you are driving it, but you only spend 5% of your time driving the car, and the battery is sit ting there doing every little - except getting recharged for the remaining 95% of the time.
It makes sense to let the network exploit your capital investment when you aren't using it. They'd pay for the privilege, lowering the cost of the cap ital tied up in the car.
hey don't want to have to worry about an unplanned use being prevented by t he car having insufficient charge.
So they limit the extent to which the network can run down the battery.
If most cars were electric the parked cars would be able to deliver about f our times as much power as the generating system that kept them charged.
None of them is going to ahve to work anything likw that hard to keep the n etwork balanced.
it is charged up by solar during the day it will then be driven home and w ill only be available for part of the afternoon peak usage time.
Cars are used outside of peak hour. Sydney roads stay crowded for most of t he day. Assuming that your pattern of use is the only popular one isn't a g reat way of working out actual patterns of use.
in the winter. The commute will take the car offline for much of these pe ak times. Meanwhile the car will need to retain enough charge to complete the drive back to work the next day and any lunch trips required, planned o r unplanned.
The cars that are being driven by car commuters should be recharged where t hey are parked during the day. If solar cells are providing the bulk of the generating capacity, that's when electric cars are going to get recharged.
The fact that it doesn't happen now isn't evidence that it won't happen whe n there are more of them around.
the obstacles are numerous and the likely outcome is that only a rather sm all fraction of the total automotive battery capacity will be available for storage use.
If the cars are parked for 95% of the time - which is the current pattern - 95% of the total installed battery capacity is gong to be available.
There may be obstacles, but there's also a lot of reason to work on overcom ing them. Telsa battery pack in South Australia is turning out to be great tool for short term phase and amplitude control, and has obsoleted a lot of the equipment that was being used for the job. The grid is paying at lot m ore for that service - about $A35 million so far - than the battery pack i s earning by buying power when it cheap and selling it when it is worth mor e, which has been worth about $A1.5 million so far.
Nobody is admitting exactly how much Tesla got paid for the set-up - $A50 m illions is suggested - but it seems to be paying off.
r hats. Not one person has indicated they actually understand what is impo rtant regarding a hydrogen pipeline. We can talk about this aspect or that , but we don't know what determines the utility of piping hydrogen.
We know what determines the utility of piping natural gas.
Hydrogen isn't wildly different.
rans-
erature superconductors immersed in liquid hydrogen, would make more sense, though perhaps not all the way across Canada.
lectricity where there's lots of sun and no cloud, and shipping the energy captured out by electrolysing water to hydrogen and putting that into pipes , tankers or big tanks, depending on whether you want to ship the energy lo cally or overseas, or store it until the sun isn't shining and the wind isn 't blowing.
o transportation.
Not really. We've got electric cars, and we've got hydrogen fuel cells.
We aren't inventing a whole new technology from scratch.
ay from having that working on a useful scale.
It's more bending what we've got to this particular application.
A mass market for fuel cells is going to drive even more development to mak e them cheaper and longer-lived.
e infrastructure. For the time being the only change required is to provid e charging for trips. Tesla was all about that although now they seem to b e working on adding more charging capacity in urban areas to help support s ales. I think this is as much a PR issue as anything, but I don't know tha t for sure. My use case is to charge at home, but there are those for whom that is not as practical. I guess going out once or twice a week to park at the charger and having dinner nearby isn't such a terrible thing. I won der if this will lead to a business model for shopping areas to attract bus iness by promoting charging.
Fat chance. Putting slow charge points onto parking meters and into parking bays makes a lot more sense. Regular domestic wiring is ubiquitous. Adding the hardware that can recognise the car being charged and bill the owner o r driver isn't a big deal - the internet of things enthusiasts have probabl y already invented a slew of solutions. If it's in your garage, you don't e ven need that.
And if you charge your car with domestic electricity, it makes it much more difficult for the government to slap an extra tax on the energy you use fo r driving around, as they do with gasoline/petrol.
irst) this deals with the fact that solar and wind power are intermittent.
It depends how well the tank is insulated, and whether it's got a little St irling engine cooler to take out the heat that does get in.
Traditionally, cryogenic tanks let the heat that does leak in boil off some of the liquified gas. Liquid nitrogen Dewar flasks tend to be topped up by weekly deliveries from a tanker, but a litre of liquid nitrogen only costs about as much as a litre of milk, and nitrogen gas won't burn.
? Why do you say convert hydrogen into electricity?
fuel cell in the car to generate electricity, avoiding the power waste impl icit in the Carnot cycle.
g tank of liquid hydrogen can store a lot more energy much more cheaply tha n a comparable heap of batteries.
tric cars, the heap of batteries doing nothing in parked cars would be big enough to hold at least half a days worth of national energy consumption/pr oduction.
ter to pay Paul. The whole point of the battery in a car is to power the c ar. Not many cars are sitting around waiting for the odd chance they are n eeded.
ar batteries as network backup stops the cars charging if the generators ar e heavily loaded - cloud passing over the solar cells.
, so - in most cases - it would be practical steal some charge from a fully charged battery to make up a brief network shortfall.
t, but you only spend 5% of your time driving the car, and the battery is s itting there
e time.
We went round and round about this before you continue to try to make the s ame illogical points. The car can't be charged and discharged at the same time. The needs of the owner conflict with the needs of the power grid. Y es, there can be *some* utility from these batteries, but I would bet on th e average it would be some small portion of the aggregate car battery capac ity.
u aren't using it. They'd pay for the privilege, lowering the cost of the c apital tied up in the car.
We also discussed this. The car battery is an expendable item, a very *exp ensive* expendable item. Even if the batteries manage to last 200 hundred thousand miles, that comes to some $0.10 a mile. Letting the utility compa ny discharge and charge them every day will likely cut their life in half m eaning the cost to the car owner will not be cheap.
NO FREE LUNCH!
I've also pointed out that while the cells designed for cars will evolve to be charged faster (a significant advantage on trips and for owners who can 't charge at home) this is irrelevant. The power company won't be getting a free lunch since they will need to pay the car owner fair compensation wh ich won't be any cheaper than buying their own batteries. Since it is like ly there will at some point be a different optimization for batteries used to support the utility grid, why would the power company want to rent sub-o ptimal car batteries rather than lowering their costs by using batteries op timized for power grid use?
they don't want to have to worry about an unplanned use being prevented by the car having insufficient charge.
You are saying users can plan their usage... until the unplanned need. The power company won't be paying them a profit, only covering their costs. I f car owners want profit the power company can save money by buying their o wn batteries. Without receiving a profit why should any car owner want to limit their unplanned usage *at all*?
four times as much power as the generating system that kept them charged.
That doesn't follow. The charging rate may be set by the battery limitatio ns, but it is around 100 kW. To exploit a higher rate will require even mo re expensive chargers... at HOME. Now you are talking about lots of little chargers/dischargers losing the economy of scale if the utility simply buy s their own batteries saving more money on top of the savings of not paying the car owners profit.
network balanced.
If it is charged up by solar during the day it will then be driven home and will only be available for part of the afternoon peak usage time.
the day. Assuming that your pattern of use is the only popular one isn't a great way of working out actual patterns of use.
And much of that use is *unplanned* requiring more use of the batteries wit h less opportunity to soak up the sun provided power or releasing it to the grid.
pm in the winter. The commute will take the car offline for much of these peak times. Meanwhile the car will need to retain enough charge to complet e the drive back to work the next day and any lunch trips required, planned or unplanned.
they are parked during the day. If solar cells are providing the bulk of t he generating capacity, that's when electric cars are going to get recharge d.
hen there are more of them around.
I never said anything different. My description above assumes they will be charged at work from solar. The problem is getting this power from the ca r to the grid at the times when it is needed... mostly during the morning a nd evening drive times when the cars are more in use than any other time of day.
ut the obstacles are numerous and the likely outcome is that only a rather small fraction of the total automotive battery capacity will be available f or storage use.
- 95% of the total installed battery capacity is gong to be available.
A totally pointless statistic. Car batteries are only useful during the ac tual times they are needed. Being parked at night is of virtually no value at all.
oming them. Telsa battery pack in South Australia is turning out to be grea t tool for short term phase and amplitude control, and has obsoleted a lot of the equipment that was being used for the job. The grid is paying at lot more for that service - about $A35 million so far - than the battery pack is earning by buying power when it cheap and selling it when it is worth m ore, which has been worth about $A1.5 million so far.
As I've explained the economics, there ISN'T a good reason to worry with th e hassles of using car batteries to support the grid. It saves the power c ompany nothing while providing the car owner nothing in return other than p ossibly a break even on expenses and no compensation for the loss of utilit y. Any profits from time shifting power would support utility owned batter ies even better than the undependable car battery availability.
millions is suggested - but it seems to be paying off.
And that is the most likely way forward. Utility will plan on a need and b uys batteries designed for the purpose at the most cost effective arrangeme nt. Utilities won't rent car batteries at the pleasure of the car owner.
I can just see what happens on a hot Friday when too many people decide to get their car charged during the day then keep it off the grid so they can go on a beach holiday.... too many turn on their AC with little relief from the car batteries - bringing down the grid.
That's not just possible, but would be a regular occurrence with your schem e.
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 10:07:30 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
e:
joules
TP)
890.32 kjoule.
6, so 1:2.2 in Hydrogen's favor.
equired to pile it from one palce to another.
eir hats. Not one person has indicated they actually understand what is im portant regarding a hydrogen pipeline. We can talk about this aspect or th at, but we don't know what determines the utility of piping hydrogen.
Like I said, no one here has indicated they actually understand the issues.
t
trans-
mperature superconductors immersed in liquid hydrogen, would make more sens e, though perhaps not all the way across Canada.
electricity where there's lots of sun and no cloud, and shipping the energ y captured out by electrolysing water to hydrogen and putting that into pip es, tankers or big tanks, depending on whether you want to ship the energy locally or overseas, or store it until the sun isn't shining and the wind i sn't blowing.
nto transportation.
I didn't say anything about you scratching yourself. I said the technology is not yet practical.
way from having that working on a useful scale.
ake them cheaper and longer-lived.
Fuel cells are only part of the problem. Developing the infrastructure to support hydrogen cars is a much bigger task than supporting electric cars.
the infrastructure. For the time being the only change required is to prov ide charging for trips. Tesla was all about that although now they seem to be working on adding more charging capacity in urban areas to help support sales. I think this is as much a PR issue as anything, but I don't know t hat for sure. My use case is to charge at home, but there are those for wh om that is not as practical. I guess going out once or twice a week to par k at the charger and having dinner nearby isn't such a terrible thing. I w onder if this will lead to a business model for shopping areas to attract b usiness by promoting charging.
ng bays makes a lot more sense. Regular domestic wiring is ubiquitous. Addi ng the hardware that can recognise the car being charged and bill the owner or driver isn't a big deal - the internet of things enthusiasts have proba bly already invented a slew of solutions. If it's in your garage, you don't even need that.
Not sure what your point is.
re difficult for the government to slap an extra tax on the energy you use for driving around, as they do with gasoline/petrol.
Not really. Here in the US Virginia has been considering a tax on electric cars to compensate for the loss of gasoline tax. I'm not as familiar with other states, but it may well happen. Governments aren't stupid. The thi ng they know the best is how to tax. Oh, they also tax the electricity.
Intercalation storage is twice as volume-efficient as liquifaction, doesn't require high pressure tanks, and is omitted from the above storage sob story.
The table 1.2 here is a good place to start.
Why do you think fuel cells are inefficient? No one else does. Internal combustion engines are...what, about 35% ?
Huge energy cost to produce and store hydrogen. Fuel cells needed to convert it to electricity, then store it in batteries. Huge conversion costs. Generates CO2.
Wind and solar produce electricity directly then store it in batteries. No CO2.
Electic cars burn no energy sitting at traffic lights. No energy lost.
Run out and trade in your whatever for a hydrogen fueled car.
formatting link
The entire hydrogen cycle, to use and feed those fuel cells, is horribly inefficient. It's the entire energy cycle that matters, not just one bit of it.
35% isn't bad when the fuel comes out of the ground and fills your tank in three minutes. Does anybody make liquid hydrogen jerry cans?
What the world needs to make electric cars more appealing is better - lighter and faster to recharge - batteries. But it's hard to match the equivalent energy rate of a gas pump.
You snipped the part that you don't like:
formatting link
"For comparison, the "wind-to-wheel" efficiency is at least three times greater for electric cars than for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles."
Numbers matter. 3 is a big number.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Current fuel cell cars have batteries for acceleration and regen braking, which adds weight and cost and complexity. It sounds like fuel cells have low peak power capacity. The two small fuel cell cars that Car+Driver reviewed each weigh about 2 tons.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
first) this deals with the fact that solar and wind power are intermittent.
This is well known, and has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
The Australian push towards a hydrogen economy seems to be aimed at making lots of hydrogen in Australia, liquifying it and shipping tanker-loads of t he stuff to Japan.
John Larkin's grasp of the word "inefficient" isn't great. He seems to use it in the same way that krw uses "stupid" to denote ideas he doesn't like.
Electrolyisng water to hydrogen, liquifying it and shipping it thousands of miles does waste a lot of energy, but laying a high voltage undersea cable from Australia to Japan doesn't seem to be a feasible alternative, no matt er how much energy it would save if it could be made to work.
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:15:22 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
e:
ote:
e:
Peter to pay Paul. The whole point of the battery in a car is to power the car. Not many cars are sitting around waiting for the odd chance they are needed.
car batteries as network backup stops the cars charging if the generators are heavily loaded - cloud passing over the solar cells.
ry, so - in most cases - it would be practical steal some charge from a ful ly charged battery to make up a brief network shortfall.
it, but you only spend 5% of your time driving the car, and the battery is sitting there doing every little - except getting recharged for the remain ing 95% of the time.
same illogical points.
The points are not illogical. You seem to feel a deep emotional unwillingne ss to take them seriously, but that doesn't make them illogical.
Obviously not. The point is that since it's typically parked for 95% of the time, it doesn't spend all that time getting recharged.
To some extent, which is why the grid would pay the car owner to be allowed to mess around with the energy stored in the battery.
The minimal messing around would be to allow the grid to delay charging the car battery until there was plenty of power around, and a more active syst em would be able to take back some energy from an almost fully charged batt ery - the threshold charge level would be negotiable and the grid would hav e to pay more if it could take the charge level down to say 50% as opposed to say 90%.
the average it would be some small portion of the aggregate car battery ca pacity.
What you seem incapable of appreciating is that if we got close to 100% ele ctric cars, the aggregate battery capacity - in terms of power delivery - w ould be some three to four times the capacity of the grid.
The actual amount of energy stored would only be some hours worth of this p ower level, but that should be plenty for short term load shifting.
you aren't using it. They'd pay for the privilege, lowering the cost of the capital tied up in the car.
xpensive* expendable item.
It doesn't wear fast, and drivers frequently wipe off their cars in acciden ts long before the car has worn out.
And you get paid for the extra wear.
mes to some $0.10 a mile. Letting the utility company discharge and charge them every day will likely cut their life in half meaning the cost to the car owner will not be cheap.
But they'd get paid to cover that cost, a point you seem incapable to takin g on board.
There was never any suggestion that this was a free lunch. You'd get paid b y the grid for allowing them to exploit a capital asset when you weren't us ing it.
to be charged faster (a significant advantage on trips and for owners who c an't charge at home) this is irrelevant.
Why on earth would owners not be able to charge at home? If electric cars b ecome ubiquitous, you will almost certainly be able to charge them any plac e where you can legally park. Fast charging stations are modelled on existi ng gas stations, and won't be anything like as numerous once electric cars get to be ubiquitous.
People on long trips may need them - though my guess is that car hire may g et cheap and convenient enough that people will hire a long distance car if they need to make a long trip - but they won't be anything like as ubiquit ous as today's gas stations.
ay the car owner fair compensation which won't be any cheaper than buying t heir own batteries. Since it is likely there will at some point be a diffe rent optimization for batteries used to support the utility grid, why would the power company want to rent sub-optimal car batteries rather than lower ing their costs by using batteries optimized for power grid use?
You are ignoring economy of scale. Car batteries are going to be manufactur ed in huge volumes, specialised grid back-up batteries in no more than a te nth of that volume, so their unit price will be twice as high.
Telsa's South Australian grid back-up battery pack was just a stack of car batteries. Researchers may come up with marginally better solutions for gri d back-up batteries, but it's likely to languish in a JVC versus Betamax vo lume conquers technical advantage scenario.
t, they don't want to have to worry about an unplanned use being prevented by the car having insufficient charge.
Always a problem, but there are always unplanned needs that have to be deal t with by throwing money at them. It's a low frequency problem, and it make s sense to budget around the predictable.
ts.
What makes you think that? The power company will have to pay enough to mak e the deal attractive. It will never be attractive to you, but others may r equire less generous compensation. That's what the free market is for.
The power companies can always buy their own batteries if the average car o wner is too nervous or too rapacious.
ir own batteries.
It's all a question of the cost of capital and the return you get from inve sting that capital. We've got a free market economy that optimises those ch oices over all the people making the choices - not just you.
nplanned usage *at all*?
Why indeed? The assumption is that getting money from the power company tha t they would not otherwise get will influence their choice.
ut four times as much power as the generating system that kept them charged .
It follows from the fact that in the US the power expended on driving aroun d in cars is about 30% of the power currently generated by the grid.
If all cars were electric, and electric cars are parked 95% of the time, as internal combustion engine powered cars are now, the power delivery capaci ty of all the batteries in all the cars would be six times the current grid generating capacity. The grid generating capacity would have to be raised by 30% to keep all those cars charged, which means that the batteries in al l the cars would be able to deliver 4.6 times the capacity of the enlarged grid generating capacity.
Since 5% of the cars would be in use, the parked cars would be good for abo ut 4.4 times the enlarged grid generating capacity.
If you can't follow that logic, there isn't much hope for you.
100 kW. To exploit a higher rate will require even more expensive charger s... at HOME. Now you are talking about lots of little chargers/discharger s losing the economy of scale if the utility simply buys their own batterie s saving more money on top of the savings of not paying the car owners prof it.
You are obsessed with high current chargers, because you confuse recharging an electric vehicle with filling the tank on a gas burner.
If a car is parked for 95% of the time, it can be recharged a lot more slow ly while it is parked. Getting a mains electricity to a parked car is a ver y different problem from getting gasoline into one.
he network balanced.
If it is charged up by solar during the day it will then be driven home a nd will only be available for part of the afternoon peak usage time.
of the day. Assuming that your pattern of use is the only popular one isn't a great way of working out actual patterns of use.
ith less opportunity to soak up the sun provided power or releasing it to t he grid.
The typical car is parked 95% of the time, and the typical unplanned use is n't a battery-draining long trip.
8 pm in the winter. The commute will take the car offline for much of thes e peak times. Meanwhile the car will need to retain enough charge to compl ete the drive back to work the next day and any lunch trips required, plann ed or unplanned.
re they are parked during the day. If solar cells are providing the bulk of the generating capacity, that's when electric cars are going to get rechar ged.
when there are more of them around.
be charged at work from solar. The problem is getting this power from the car to the grid at the times when it is needed... mostly during the morning and evening drive times when the cars are more in use than any other time of day.
You haven't internalised the fact that cars spend 905% of their time parked .
but the obstacles are numerous and the likely outcome is that only a rathe r small fraction of the total automotive battery capacity will be available for storage use.
rn - 95% of the total installed battery capacity is gong to be available.
actual times they are needed. Being parked at night is of virtually no val ue at all.
Not for solar cell generation, but wind farms could find it very handy.
rcoming them. Telsa battery pack in South Australia is turning out to be gr eat tool for short term phase and amplitude control, and has obsoleted a lo t of the equipment that was being used for the job. The grid is paying at l ot more for that service - about $A35 million so far - than the battery pa ck is earning by buying power when it cheap and selling it when it is worth more, which has been worth about $A1.5 million so far.
the hassles of using car batteries to support the grid. It saves the power company nothing while providing the car owner nothing in return other than possibly a break even on expenses and no compensation for the loss of util ity.
The whole point about the South Australian Telsa battery pack story was tha t batteries can can save the power company quite a lot of money.
If they can exploit the batteries in parked cars, rather than tying up capi tal by buying them directly from Telsa they can save the same kind of money without making a significant capital investment.
s even better than the undependable car battery availability.
When cars spend 95% of their time parked, batteries are dependably availabl e.
50 millions is suggested - but it seems to be paying off.
buys batteries designed for the purpose at the most cost effective arrange ment. Utilities won't rent car batteries at the pleasure of the car owner.
Why not?
o get their car charged during the day then keep it off the grid so they ca n go on a beach holiday.... too many turn on their AC with little relief fr om the car batteries - bringing down the grid.
The grid already has to factor in that kind of variation in demand. It does n't seem to go down all that often. In fact the prolonged power failure - s ome hours - in South Australia that prompted the purchase of the Tesla bat tery pack was the result of exceptionally high winds blowing down a crucial high voltage link, which didn't stop the Australian federal government (co nservative, and heavily influenced by well-heeled coal miners) from blaming the state government's (other party) enthusiasm for renewable power.
eme.
Why? Because you imagine it to be not only possible but somehow likely?
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:28:28 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
te:
ote:
their hats. Not one person has indicated they actually understand what is important regarding a hydrogen pipeline. We can talk about this aspect or that, but we don't know what determines the utility of piping hydrogen.
s.
You do seem to have an emotional "understanding" of the issues that prompts you to make irrational claims.
hat
,.
a
temperature superconductors immersed in liquid hydrogen, would make more se nse, though perhaps not all the way across Canada.
te electricity where there's lots of sun and no cloud, and shipping the ene rgy captured out by electrolysing water to hydrogen and putting that into p ipes, tankers or big tanks, depending on whether you want to ship the energ y locally or overseas, or store it until the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
into transportation.
gy is not yet practical.
It's perfectly practical. It may not be cheap enough to be widely practicab le, but that's economies of scale for you.
People have put together hydrogen fuel cell prototype cars. They don't get the hydrogen to fuel them from any kind of renewable energy source, but the re are proof of principle electrolytic cells that can generate hydrogen.
ng way from having that working on a useful scale.
make them cheaper and longer-lived.
o support hydrogen cars is a much bigger task than supporting electric cars .
In the sense that somebody would have to spend quite a bit of money.
Technology that would work is around, and manifested in the occasional hydr ogen recharging station at a few isolated gas stations.
You lose more energy making hydrogen by electrolysis than you do charging a battery. The losses are significant, but "huge" is a Trumpism.
Another Trumpism. Fuel cells deliver between 40% and 60% of the theoretically possibly energy - not wonderful, but half again better than the Carnot cycle in an internal combustion engine.
Doesn't have to. Making hydrogen out by reforming natural gas with water vapour is a cheap choice at the moment, but it isn't the only way of making hydrogen.
My wife's car turns off it's internal combustion engine at traffic lights, and turns it back on again instantly when you take your foot of the brake pedal.
Not a lot. Electronic complexity is cheap and light.
Everything has a peak power capacity. Hybrid cars make the same choice, and you get a better fuel efficiency by letting the batteries cope with the peak demands.
They were proof of principle prototypes. Serious optimisation costs lots of money - and it's only worth spending it if you are going to sell in mass market volume.
On 10/27/2018 7:24 PM, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: snip
Calibration?? Say I wanted a small SUV with 100 mile range. How big/heavy would the necessary battery be with today's technology? If I wanted to use Hydrogen, how big/heavy would the storage media be with today's technology?
If I wanted to drive the ski resort, what's the probability that the resort would have a Hydrogen filling station? What's the incentive for someone to put up a Hydrogen filling station on the mountain? Chicken / Egg. Wishing don't make it happen. Profit makes stuff happen.
I assert that Hydrogen might make sense for a fleet of local buses or local mail delivery vans that always sleep in the same parking lot.
The same can be said for home cooking/heating. Maybe you can use the same pipeline for Hydrogen, but how do you get Hydrogen to the first dozen people who want it while still providing natural gas to the 10 million who haven't converted yet...and the hundred thousand who never will.
The hybrid automobile allowed cars to start moving away from fossil fuel. But it did so by leveraging two pervasive distribution systems.
Once you've built the Nuclear (or wind or solar) plant, does converting it to Hydrogen make it cheaper to deliver to the load, including the amortized cost of the required additional distribution media?
get the hydrogen to fuel them from any kind of renewable energy source, but there are proof of principle electrolytic cells that can generate hydrogen .
No idea.Look at the proof of principle prototypes.
No idea.Look at the proof of principle prototypes.
Small. But you could look it up.
formatting link
True, but long term profit can come from investing a bit prematurely.
It does make the logistics a lot simpler.
n
I was in the UK during the town gas to natural gas conversion operation.
It happened and nothing dramatic went wrong.
They didn't move far away from fossil fuel - hybrid cars still burn fossil fuel but appreciably more efficiently. Plug-in hybrids which can use both f ossil fuel and recharge from mains electricity have been a mass market prod uct since 2010. The Prius has been around since about 2000.
No. The conversion of electric power to hydrogen and back from hydrogen to electric power wastes about 75% of the initial energy invested. Battery car s waste only 15%.
You need roughly three times as much generating capacity to support a hydro gen car as you need to support a battery car.
An all electric car economy would need about 30% more mains electricity gen eration as we have at the moment.
An all hydrogen car economy would need roughly twice as much as we have at the moment.
In Australia, where we have huge potential for generating power with solar cells, the attraction of hydrogen generation is that we could liquify the hydrogen and ship it off to Japan in tankers.
The sole advantage of hydrogen, but it's a big advantage, is that it makes it lot easier to store and ship the energy invested.
You just can't give up the idea that the only way to fuel a car is to drive to a service station and fill a metal tank with a smelly, messy liquid that is nasty to clean up when spilled and wastes your time in the fueling process.
I am charging my car as I type this and it will continue to charge all night long if needed. Jeeze, how much more convenient can it get??? Do you want someone from Tesla to come to your house and plug it in for you?
I don't think that is any worse than the way you constantly harp on the same Larkin focused objections to electric cars over and over again no matter how many times it is explained to you.
At least some people are willing to learn. I guess your grey cells aren't capable of that anymore, eh?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.