That reminds me, eevblog covered electric buses being trialled in Sydney and it was quite interesting. The bus company planned to buy more as a result.
Re: Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?
Posted: 15 Jan 2022, 22:57
by Greg Locock
Fuel cell vehicles used to be incredibly expensive because fuel cells were incredibly expensive. However in the last 20 years prices have dropped from eye watering to merely outrageous, something like 40 bucks per kW.
However, a fuel cell/battery hybrid starts to look good at that price. Use a small battery, say 10-20 kWh, to provide power to accelerate the car, and then recharge using a fuel cell which only has to provide the average power used by a car, which is less than 30 kW. (300Wh/mile*70 mph=21000 W)
$1200 for your fuel cell, an EV with a small battery, and an undoubtedly expensive fuel tank. Of course this only makes sense if the hydrogen is cheap.
Re: Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?
Posted: 16 Jan 2022, 00:48
by djos
Agreed, however the economics will never allow hydrogen to be produced as cheaply as pure electrons, there’s too many extra steps plus infrastructure costs.
Hydrogen really only makes sense if batteries don’t ever have the ability to charge as fast as liquid fuelling and not die in the process.
The way things are advancing in the battery world, this may be the mail in the hydrogen coffin for even long range transport.
Re: Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?
Posted: 16 Jan 2022, 02:29
by Greg Locock
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
I agree fast recharge batteries, or incredibly high energy densities, would be a more seamless fit at the moment.
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
The irony of this is nuclear stations can produce huge amounts of desalinated water as a 'by-product' at very little cost.
(can they also produce hydrogen without 'consuming their own product? )
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
The irony of this is nuclear stations can produce huge amounts of desalinated water as a 'by-product' at very little cost.
(can they also produce hydrogen without 'consuming their own product? )
Nuclear is definitely the way...
One has to wonder why Elon isn't using his Boring machines to dig large spaces 1000ft under cities that can then hold nuclear reactors to power them.
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
Energy storage is rather new, but sure a lot of options will start coming around like molten salt, compressed air, artificial lake etc
The argument is that hydrogen is essentially free to make (haha) if you make it in the outback, from intermittent renewables, more or less just cost of capital. I'll believe that when I see it.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
The irony of this is nuclear stations can produce huge amounts of desalinated water as a 'by-product' at very little cost.
(can they also produce hydrogen without 'consuming their own product? )
We have a single medical / research Reactor in the whole country of Australia and no nuclear power capability.
That may change as we have just signed up for nuclear subs, but that is likely 20 years away, if it happens.
Which we all know is BS! Especially in the outback, water is a valuable commodity and it costs money to make electricity to power the process.
Even if you install a big solar or wind array, it’ll cost more money to convert the electrons and water to hydrogen, then store it, than it does to make electrons and store them in batteries.
The irony of this is nuclear stations can produce huge amounts of desalinated water as a 'by-product' at very little cost.
(can they also produce hydrogen without 'consuming their own product? )
We have a single medical / research Reactor in the whole country of Australia and no nuclear power capability.
That may change as we have just signed up for nuclear subs, but that is likely 20 years away, if it happens.
The world was force fed so much incorrect information about atomic power by the anti's that it will take until the whole generation have moved on before it is fully embraced, which is a shame as it is the only real solution.
BTW, I am not blindly pushing atom power, there are caveats which must be addressed, but compared to the alternative's they are tiny.
Re: Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?
Posted: 16 Jan 2022, 22:43
by Greg Locock
France did it quite quickly and safely, and presumably spent rather less than 6 billion a pop.
Re: Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?
Posted: 16 Jan 2022, 22:48
by djos
@big tea I totally agree with you, the linking of atomic power to atomic weapons in the public mind was just pure stupidity and incredibly irresponsible by media and fringe “eco” groups!
Sure it has issues, but less ppl have died as a result of nuclear power generation than from coal power generation.
France did it quite quickly and safely, and presumably spent rather less than 6 billion a pop.
Germany went full on the other way and are now realising they about to reap the benefits.
There are several 'Child of the 60's ecologist protesters' on youtube saying they were force fed dogma and are resenting it as that is what got us into todays position.
The problem is now there is a 30 year lead time for building one.