Youtube comments of Engineering the weird guy (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103).
-
52
-
22
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
@andyryan6285 it’s not based on speculation, the warrantees are 8 years. Which means the manufacturer is confident it will last much longer than 8 years. In addition simulated testing of EV batteries get 1,500 cycles to 80% of its remaining capacity. At 352 miles to a cycle that’s well over 500,000 miles before you’ve lost only 20% of your original range. Model 3’s on road today show an average of 2% degradation at 100,000 miles.
As for the comment regarding the Prius. If you’re a keen eyed reader you might have already noticed why that was a very ignorant analogy however allow me to spell it out to you. Even if a Prius battery got 1,500 cycles to a charge, assuming the largest type it could maybe only drive about 25 miles to a charge/cycle. Meaning that you’d have 1,500 x 25 = 37,500 miles before needing it loses 20% of its capacity
But the Prius doesn’t have something full scale EV’s do. Large, sophisticated battery management systems (BMS). BEV have the most advanced BMS in the world. The batteries are literally swimming in a bed of coolant that keeps them not only warm but cold. Discharge and charge are constantly monitored to with less than 1 micro amp to optimise charge and discharge rates and the potential across any one of the thousands of battery cells in an EV is balanced to within 0.01 of a MilliVolt. Non of which a Prius does or has space for. The result is the Prius has a 500 cycle life. Meaning to get to 80% of your battery health remaining you only need to travel 12,500 miles on battery. So yes, Prius batteries do have to get replaced more often. But not prius batteries are not analogous to full scale EV batteries
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
Actually EV’s aren’t much heavier than a standard car, additionally, contrary to popular belief, whilst the fuel itself is lighter hydrogen cars are infact heavier. To break it down, the Toyota Mirai is the same size and size class as the Tesla model 3. Tesla model 3 weighs around 1,800kg, the Mirai weighs over 1,900kg
In comparison with to other vehicles, the model 3 is in the midsized luxury sedan range. Other cars in that category were include the BMW 5 series at 1,900kg and the Audi A6 Quattro at 1,990kg. With the tesla being the lightest of the three.
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@EldeNice 1 lithium mining is bad. And would be worse than gas if we had to fill up on lithium like you have to fill up on gas. But we don’t. Batteries are apart of the car. Not a fuel. They last the lifetime of the vehicle and are almost 100% recyclable. (Around 95%-97%) (also ties into 2.)
3.) incredibley false. According to statistics, the American NHTSA, Australian AANCAP safety board, the European NCAP safety board and many others. Compared to ICE vehicles EV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and are generally regarded as safer when they do since EV fires typically take hours to take hold of the vehicle, often just showing smoke for 30-60 minutes before visible flames whilst combustion cars typically are engulfed in less than a minute. If I had to guess it would be something to do with the combustion engine being fed a highly combustible fuel, being lubricated by a reservoir of highly combustible oil, while operating at temperatures above their ignition temperatures, but maybe that’s me…
As for it being green, it’s more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a cheap portable generator than it is to use that same fuel in even a modern, conventional combustion car. So yup. DEFINATELY more green the ICE.
As for hydrogen, hydrogen cars, using GREEN hydrogen needs 4 times more electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen than a BEV needs for 1 miles worth of charge. Since both would get their energy from the grid, which isn’t fully green itself, EV’s are 4 times greener than green hydrogen with the added bonus of being able to use home solar.
If we talk about any other kind of hydrogen, then hydrogen cars are less green than even ICE cars.
Couple that with the fact that hydrogen cars only last at best around 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV meaning you have to both make and decommission 3 whole hydrogen cars to match the lifespan of 1 BEV all whilst using dirtier fuels than the EV. So yeah. They are greener. Do they run on marshmallows and butterflies. Nope. But they’re the best we got right now.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@northDSX hydrogen fuel. or lithium batteries... well hydrogen cars already use lithium batteries plus palladium and other toxic rare earth metals in their fuel cells. In terms of sustainable though, Hydrogen vehicles struggle to live past 100,000 - 200,000 miles whilst modern BEV's are designed to and are showing that they will last up to or exceeding 500,000 miles.
What isnt sustainable is building 3 whole ass cars to supply the lifespan of a single BEV with all the emissions and mining required to make a whole car. compared to batteries which are <96% recyclable inclusive of all the lithium nickel and cobalt (not that new gen batteries use cobalt at all).
What also isnt sustainable is need the grid to supply 3-4 times more electricity per mile driven just to produce enough green hydrogen. And unless thats from an entirely renewables grid, you're creating 3-4 times more emissions per mile just from electricity generation with green hydrogen. If it is from a 100% reneables grid you will need your energy grid to be 3-4 times larger than that BEV's require and all the emissions and mining that go along with building those 3-4 times more renewables power plants and maintaining them..
As an example if you had 1 wind farm to supply the needs of 1,000 people with BEV vehicles, you would need to mine for and build 3-4 wind farms to supply the needs of those same 1,000 people if they had hydrogen cars for them to use green hydrogen.
If they dont use green hydrogen than they're getting their hydrogen made from fossil fuels. Steam reformation or gasification of coal or oil. In a process that creates more emissions than just burning it as fuel in the first place. For example it produces less emissions to run you car on LPG than it is to use that LPG to create grey or blue hydrogen. plus your car will last longer, be faster, safter and have better boot and cabin space and cost way less to fuel per mile..... soo..... why get a hydrogen car thats worse in every way just to use a fuel that's worse for the environment? doesnt make sense. So if you are using hydrogen cars, you're using green hydrogen... which is categorically worse than BEV's for the environment in a car thats worse than BEV's in almost every single way.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EldeNice Batteries like phone batteries or AA toy batteries arent recycled. However EV batteries buy in large ARE recycled. EV makers such as Tesla even boast on their website that they recycle the batteries from all their own cars in-house for use in new cars. Mostly due to the fact that if you do it in house, its a cheaper way of getting materials, as opposed to a third party recycler with a profit market attached. And the fact that they put these garuntees on their websites means that if they dont follow through with those statements they are open to be suit for tens of millions of dollars. Not something these companies take lightly.
So no, they dont end up in land fills. Even EV's before modern recycling didnt send their batteries to landfills. They were sent to storage warehouses to be recycled in the future. So again. wrong.
As for the car fire statement. Categorically FALSE! According to statistics in the US, Australia and the EU, as well as the American NHTSA, the Australian AANCAP safety board, the European NCAP safety board and others, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles and are 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to ICE vehicle. Mostly due to the fact that unlike ICE vehicle, EV's dont have their engines lubricated by a reservoir of highly flammable oil whilst being fed highly flammable fuel, all through an engine operating well above the ignition temperatures of either substance.
It is also worth noting that many of these safety boards also stated that even when there is a fire, EV"s are still significantly safer for the occupants because thermal runaway is typically a very slow process. Often it takes 30 minutes to 3 hours to see visible flames. It just smokes and smolders. Meanwhile the typical time it takes for an ICE Vehicle to be fully engulfed in flames is rough 90 seconds on average (ya know, due to all the flammable oils and fuels throughout the whole car...). Which do you think is more survivable?
artificial fuels are not green. Even ethanol is a poor idea due to the requirement to use land previously used to produce food, to produce fuel, and all the emissions that go into growing and harvesting and processing the crop. Artifical fuels made from captured carbon arent green either. Require ENOURMOUS amounts of energy to both capture the carbon, and then re-constitute it into fuel. Energy which has an emissions footprint. The same amount of energy it takes to produce 1km worth of artificial fuel from a typical non 100% green grid, is the same amount of energy an EV would need to go around 50km.... wow. such green....
Hydrogen isnt any better. Whilst you can produce green hydrogen, it suffers from the same problem. You have to MAKE it. Meaning you need 4 times more energy from the same electricity grid that charges an EV per mile. Meaning that even green hydrogen produces 4 times more emissions per mile than BEV's do.
However, Electrolysis is VERY SLOW and because you need far more grid capacity per mile for it, you cant produce the worlds demand for hydrogen through green hydrogen alone. The vast majority has to come from grey hydrogen. I.e. using FOSSIL FUELS. which are HYDRO-carbons. In a process which produces more emissions than if you had just burnt that fuel in a ICE in the first place. WOW.... SUCH GREEN
further to that hydrogen vehicles also use lithium batteries because fuel cells cannot produce enough power to adequately accelerate the car. and whilst they are smaller batteries. There is a critial thing you need to remember.
FUEL CELLS DONT LAST VERY LONG. According to Toyota and Hyundai, their fuel cells are only rated to last around 150,000 miles, around 1/3rd the lifespan of modern BEV batteries. Meaning you have to scrap and manufacture 3 whole ass cars for every BEV lifepsan. Which do you think has the larger environmental impact? making 3 whole hydrogen cars that run of fuel 4 times more dirty AT BEST or making 1 BEV's which produces 4 times less emissions per mile? It isnt rocket science.
Aside from the fact that fuel cells use Palladium, which is an incredible toxic rare earth metal. WAY More toxic than anything in an EV battery.
So no, Synthetic fuels arent going to save us. It will never be cheap and will never be green.
And no, Hydrogen is not green, its not better, infact its worse in every conceivable way. It even gets less range despite popular belief. They just make bad, short lived, slow, impractical, expensive and less green cars.
Do yourself a favor and open google.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@omarsatar2003 it implications of making green hydrogen is the same for BEV’s. It’s only truely green if it’s made from pure renewables grid. Unfortunately the world is not yet there. In addition just taking the excess power generation will not be enough to produce enough hydrogen for a national fleet of vehicles. Not even close.
Hydrogen needs between 3-4 times more electricity per mile than BEV’s do. That’s a lot. So on a non 100% renewables grid, green hydrogen isn’t very green. At least with BEVs you can supplement charging with home solar.
Meanwhile on a completely renewables grid, if you have 1 whole wind farm with all the cost, space, materials and emissions that go with that, to power the needs of 100 drivers with BEV’s, you need 2-3 more wind farms to power the needs of those same 100 drivers with hydrogens vehicles.
Not really all that green.
In addition, hydrogen vehicles don’t last very long. With today’s technology, 15 years or 150,000 miles of driving whichever comes first, and your hydrogen car is done. Scrapped, have to build a whole new car. Meanwhile BEV’s today are showing they they’ll last well over 500,000+ miles to a lifetime. So not only are you producing 3-4 times as much energy, you’d have to build and dispose of 2-3 whole hydrogen cars to service the needs provided by a single BEV lifetime. So less green.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Gravimetric energy density? (kWh/kg) in which case, Hydrogen is clearly superior, but Volumetric Energy Density (kWh/L) in which case, Hydrogen is very clearly inferior. What use is lightweight fuel if you cant fit enough in the car. The Mirai is a mid-sized sedan, just like the Tesla Model 3, but the model 3 goes 325 miles whilst the Mirai only goes 75 miles further to 400 miles. Meanwhile the Mirai has such little cabin space that you cant actually fold the rear seats, has no front boot, and the rear boot is so small its almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size, which is made worse by the fact you cant fold the seats.
SO not only does the Mirai only carry enough to go only 75 miles further, but that amount of fuel takes up so much space that it makes the car utterly impractical, its ridiculous to transport adults in the rear passenger seats, and you have an impractically small boot for luggage or storage that you cant even extend into the rear seats.
Coupled with the fact its significantly slower and costs around 20x per mile more for fuel than the Tesla model 3, i'd be happy to sacrifice 75 miles of range to get a car thats half way practical, faster and significantly cheaper to run. (oh and it also lasts about 3 times longer than the Mirai too).
So whats the point of having a light weight fuel if you cant store enough of it to make the car practical?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ranjeetkapse Yes and no. if you had to recycle them simultaneously, they are fairly similar between BEV and FCEV's. However there is one more consideration. A FCEV vehicle is expected to last little over 200,000 miles (320,000 km). a BEV such as the Tesla Model 3 is expected to last well over 500,000 miles (800,000 km). Based on the rated lifetime of the battery which is 1,500 cycles. And that rating is to 70% capacity. So after 1,500 cycles your battery still has 70% of its original range which is well over 230km range which makes it still very useful domestically.
So by the time 1 EV reaches its technical end of life (of which it could still be used for double that time before it reaches the motors rated lifetime of 1 million miles), you have had to recycle 2 FCEV's. and will be on your third.
So whilst the individual vehicles recyclability are approximately equivalent, when factoring lifetime of the vehicles FCEV's have just over double and potentially 4-5 times the impact of a BEV. (if you continue to use it past the Battery lifetime benchmark of 70% capacity).
That's not even factoring in the wasted energy due to the creation of Hydrogen, the compression and transportation of that hydrogen, and then the loss of energy in the fuel cell. recourses will be used to generate that wasted energy. which needs to be accounted for as well.
The only advantage Hydrogen brings to the table for domestic vehicles is speed of refuelling. But only if the infrastructure is there. Which it isn't. By comparison every household in a developed country has electricity supplied to the home. Most EV's can easily be charged off regular power points. And whilst that wont charge you in a hurry, most days you don't travel over 300 miles. Meaning that it can charge while you're at home watching TV, eating dinner, and sleeping and every morning you wake up with a full tank. The infrastructure of EV's is there already for 90% of your regular domestic use. most of the infrastructure is there for the 10% of long trips you'd do each year. and that infrastructure is already expanding rapidly.
BEV's have the lifetime, the efficiency, the performance, the infrastructure, the ecological impact, the safety and lower running costs, all over and exceeding that of FCEV's.
As I stated FCEV's only advantage domestically is refuelling speeds. However industrially they have 1 other significant advantage. Potential range. It takes far less volume to pack more hydrogen in a tank than it does to pack more batteries. As a result hydrogen trucks will hold a significant advantage over BEV trucks due to range and stopped time refuelling. (given adequate infrastructure for either). That is also to say that BEV trucks will still have an advantage is performance and safety. A fully laiden Tesla truck for example is shown to out run most modern cars outside performance vehicles off the line. Something to consider with traffic impacts in cities or places with regular steep inclines to navigate. However into city or interstate or even international freighting, this is hardly a consideration. So the only advantage there to BEV's is safety
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
well no I disagree. You think its intuitive because you've been raised on it. A foot, isnt actually the size of a foot. You find it easier to measure something in feet away because you're more familiar with feet. Go to somewhere like Australia or Europe and you ask someone to approximate a distance in feet and they'll give you a funny look. They approximate things in Meters. It also makes doing every day thing in your head much easier. Instead of working out which fractions of an inch is more or less or how large, in metric you just say 10mm or 12mm instead of 3/8th or 7/16th. If you're working out distances, you know that there is 1,000m in a km, and 100cm in a meter and 10cm in a millimetre. So if someone says they have a piece of wood 2700mm long, you know right away that its 270 cm long or 2.7m long. If someone says the track goes for 1,500 meters, you know right away that its 1.5km long.
and from the temperatures you know that 0C is the freezing point of water. you know immediately if there is a chance of snow or ice. 100c is boiling point of water so you can tell immedately that a 40c day is going to be hot.
If working out weights you know that there are 1,000 grams in a kg. So if someone tells you something weighs 500 grams you know immediately that its 0.5kg. or if its 300 grams its 0.3kg. its immediate, just shifting zeros. you also know there are 1000 milli litres (ml) in a litre. So if you get a 1L container of milk and you need 250ml of milk for your morning coffee you know straight away that, the milk container will be able to make 4 coffee's for you.
But you are trying to say that figuring out if 3/8ths is more or less than 7/16th is more intuitive than working out 10mm and 12mm? or that 2ft is 0.66 yards rather than 2m is 2,000mm? or that 2 feet is 0.167 inches rather than 2m is 20cm, or that 1.5 miles is 7920 feet rather than 1.5km is 1,500 meters is easier and more intuitive? i'd say you have a screw loose.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If we're talking about grid to vehicle efficiency, (which im assuming you mean includes transmission losses and power plant losses), then much of that is redundant when comparing green hydrogen to BEV's. As they both require electricity from the same source.
However hydrogen requires 3-4 times the same amount of energy per miles from the same grid as BEV. Charging of a BEV is between 85-98% efficient depending on how you do it. Batteries themselves are highly efficient. Hydrogen, is not so much. Fuel cells are around 60% efficient and hydrogen combustion is only around 20-25% efficient.
That means that home and small scale hydrogen production would not be very favourable over putting that solar or grid energy into a BEV. If you're getting hydrogen from water you need much more of that same energy per mile. For example the Mirai gets 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen. If you put 3kWh from a solar cell into producing hydrogen, assuming even high efficiency electrolysis you'll get 2.25 kWh worth of hydrogen (Just less than 0.07kg of hydrogen) that will be able to transport you 5 miles. Put that same energy into a Tesla Model 3 with a range of 325 miles on a 75 kWh battery pack, and assuming home charging efficiencies of 98% (which we will reduce to 90% for demonstration purposes) that will get the model 3, 13 miles of driving.
The other thing is that whilst hydrogen is light weight it takes up alot of space. EV batteries used in Teslas have a Volumetric Energy Density of 0.71 kWh/L. (not to be confused with hydrogens superior Gravimetric energy density in kWh/kg). Hydrogen as a gas does have a Volumetric energy density of 1.4 kWh/L, however thats not the full story, fuel tanks are round on all sides and tubular with a 3:1 length to diameter ratio, necessary to reduce stress concentrations in corners. When ever you put a round shape into a rectangular body like in a car, you get wasted space (draw a circle inside a square and note the wasted space in the corners). Further to that the fuel tanks have 1 inch thick walls adding 2inch to the diameter. With all that space not used for storing hydrogen gas, you get 0.62 kWh/L. But not all of that fuel is going to be used, for a fuel cell (being the most efficient use of hydrogen) you only use 60% of that fuel, meaning you have 0.37 kWh/L practical volumetric energy density, (about half that of batteries). Then if you consider that Hydrogen now also needs its own battery pack for adequate acceleration as well as an engine sized fuel cell, you have an overall practical volumetric energy density of almost 0.003kWh/L inclusive of the volume taken up by the battery and the fuel cell (which would obviously change depending on the battery and fuel cell size, but the fuel tanks will remain around 0.37kWh/L). To fit 400 miles worth into a car is challenge. And you can see the results in the Miari with its boot being so small that its nearly 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half it size, and the cabin space being so small you cent even fold the rear seats down extend the boot. All that sacrifice in practicality in terms of space, speed and cost of fuel per mile for only 75 more miles of range.
Ontop of that hydrogen has a very short life, Most hydrogen vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date limiting the life of the car to only 15 years. Whilst the fuel cell itself is only rated for 100,000 miles to 150,000 miles depending on the manufacturer with Hyundai expected to announce a 200,000 miles life fuel cell late 2022.
For those reasons I dont see hydrogen as being a good option.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@touyube481 couple of corrections. In terms of long range vehicles and freight, unfortunately BEV's also have the advantage there with better ranges, power and cost charactorists. Hydrogen simply takes up too much volume. So whilst weight isnt an issue, and you can theoretically stack on more fuel with little impact on consumption per mile, unfortunately in practice there is a limited volume where you can store fuel before needing to build a larger and heavier vehicle. Batteries on the other hand have less than half the volumetric requirements of hydrogen, so whilst more batteries means more weight, but also more range, You can fit far more batteries in meaning you can get far more range. For example the flagship hydrogen semi at the moment is the Hyundai Xcient, which cant even get to freeway speeds unloaded (because fuel cells are famously low power output) but also has a 400 mile range despite having double the fuel tank volume of a standard semi. Meanwhile the Tesla semi can get 100 miles more at 500 miles whilst being faster than a tradition truck and allowing more cabin space and shorter wheel frame.
The other thing I want to correct is the fuel cell degradation. The fuel cells dont degrade in the same way. But I would argue worse. Firstly they're only rated for a mere 100,000-150,000 miles. Which excessively small, especially compared to BEV batter lives. The fuel cells are degraded by air contaminants. although they are filtered, filters are never 100% effective and it does affect the fuel cell. Especially during start ups after production pauses. What happens then is you end up putting more fuel through for less power. You vehicle becomes slower and weaker and less fuel efficient. Where as before the 5.6kg in a Mirai got you 400 miles. By end of life that same 5.6kg would only get you 200 miles. And when you started with a fairly dismal acceleration of 9.2s 0-60mph. That would blow out to 12-13s -60mph.
This means you're paying just as much for less. By comparison when a battery degrades, its ability to be charged is compromised. Where as before you would charge 75kWh, now you can charge 60kWh at its end of life. You're only using 60kWh to charge the battery. So you're not paying for 75kWh of electricity, only for the 60 that the battery can hold. It doesn't degrade the efficiency of the motor or the vehicle meaning your electricity consumption per mile is the same and thus, your cost per mile remains the same and so does your performance. So instead of paying $80-$90 for 400 miles at the start, and by the end, paying $80-$90 for 200 miles and much less performance. For a battery, only the range is affected.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Phill0old it’s also easier to store a lot of gasses than it is to store electricity, however hydrogen isn’t one of them. Hydrogen atoms are so small they can leak through solid steel so already not an easy thing to contain, then you have to realise it has to be stored in a vessel not made of steel which has to withstand 700+ bar. Which is 32 times the pressure of LPG. Then you also have to make this not steel super strength containment vessel anti-puncture because hydrogen is extremely volatile and will readily explode with minute amounts of air. It’s more explosive than LPG, petrol fumes or even some explosives. Then you have to get this non steel, super strong, anti puncture tank and cool it. Because hydrogen has a very low inversion temperature, meaning that while most gasses, as they are taken out of a containment vessel, cool down substantially, hydrogen heats up substantially. So as you draw the gas out it gets hotter, as it gets hotter the liquid vapour pressure increases and it starts to boil off, as it does that it has to be safely discharged from the tank to avoid an explosion. So you need a non steel, super strength, anti puncture cryogenic storage.
So not so much easier than putting electricity in a battery huh? But I guess that’s all not something that the media mentions with hydrogen. It would be bad for hydrogen if people found out that your fuel leaks out of your fuel tank as you drive, while it’s releasing boiled fuel because the tank is depressurising, and it means hydrogen fuel tanks only last around 3 years. Infact. I’m not sure about modern hydrogen but the first hydrogen car produced by Toyota would have to release 1/3rd of its fuel into the air through release valves due to the liquid hydrogen boiling off.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stefanmetzeler I wouldnt be so arrogant. i'll go down paragraph by paragraph but I'm not touching the Climate stuff as that is outside my area of expertise. I'll stick to EV stuff.
Batteries represent a substantial combustion risk? no they don't. Firstly most battery fires are thermal runaway, which takes hours of smouldering before visible flames. secondly, in relation to EV's. real-world statistics don't support your anecdotes. according to the Beuro of Statistics both In the EU, Australia and the US, the AANCAP safety board, NCAP safety board and NHTSA EV's are typically 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust, and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. Id love to see you support your claim that EV's pose a raised likelihood of combustion.
next, you claim there is alot of loss in energy transportation? no there isnt. The most ineffective powerlines in the US only represent a 15% loss of energy at worst and typically sits much lower. and by loading process i believe you mean charging? EV batteries charge at about a 98% efficiency. so thats false also.
Next, Batteries do lose charge over time. But not much. My EV was parked in long term airport parking for a month and I lost less than 4% charge. But tell me, how often do you leave your car, which you can charge at home, and leave connected to the charger, sit around for months without a power supply? If you own a car, chances are its because you have use for one.
The next one. and this is a BIG one. Im especially interested to see you back this up. You claim EV batteries today dont last longer than 7 years. Where in the flying huntsman did you get that from? Modern EV batteries have a Warranty Period of 8 years alone! meaning they'll last much longer than that. They need to otherwise the company will start losing money hand over foot on warranty claims. Modern EV batteries have been showing that they'll last, and have been lasting over 400,000-500,000 miles (800,000 km). That represents approximately 30-40 years of driving for the average person and much longer than the lifespan of a combustion engine.
For example, Tesla Batteries have a cycle life of 1,500 cycles to 70% health. As in, after 1,500 cycles you have 70% of your original capacity remaining. For a model 3, its range is 325 miles (with the model S and X having lager ranges as well as other EV models). after 1,500 cycles that's 487,500 miles of driving. and you still have 230 miles of range to a charge at that point. and when the average daily commute is 70 miles. That seems more than still usable.
So please, Id love to see you support that claim.
Next is range. Most EV's are shooting at around the 400km mark these days as entry levels. For example the 2021 Nissan leaf gets 385km of range. The Tesla Model 3 Standard Range gets a realworld range of 400km. So you wont have to stop every 200km, thats half your range. Additionally super chargers are everywhere, if you're on a long trip, a stop at one of these bad boys can charge you up fully in 45 minutes with a V2 charger or 20 minutes with a V3 charger and less time if you dont need a full charge (lets say you get to the charger at 30% charge instead of 1%).
Every other instance you are charging from home, While you're not using it, while youre sleep or doing something else like cooking dinner. In that instance, you dont wait at all for a charge. you just take up the next day to a full tank of gas. You dont have to drive to a fuel station every week for gas which wastes the average person between 16-17 hours per year.
so spending an additional 1.5 hours of a 1,600 km road trip i might do once per year is a lot better than wasting 16-17 hours per year standing outside holding a pump dont you think?
Then there is grid loading. Whilst you're absolutely correct that you cant tell people to just charge their cars at night, how many people do you know who have jobs in which they cant do that, and what percentage of the population do you think they represent? a small proportion statically would be the correct answer. The vast majority of people don't need to travel more than around 100km per day (on the extreme end). for their daily commutes, shopping etc. The vast majority of people dont use their vehilces whilst they are sleeping. Hence they charge them at night when they sleep. The load on the grid is minimal at night, many generators are shut down because there simply isnt the demand.
Additionally this is a stupid point ignorant people make because its supposing that everyone receives their brand new tesla tomorrow and their gas cars are taken away. every person on the planet. Wow. what a coincidence and logistical miracle the would be! No, the world doesnt work like that. EV's have been successful on the market for over a decade now. They still make up a small (but growing) portion of the vehicle market. It will be decades still before all new vehicles are electric, and decades still before all second hand cars are electric. Meanwhile Grid capacity in every developed country has failed to, on average, double its energy capacity every 20 years due to continually rising demand ever since the light bulb was invented.
meaning that the grid is more than capable of keeping up with EV adoption, as it occurs. We're not all going to get one at once. you can calm down.
Next, you dont have to replace existing energy infrastructure for EV's. Even on coal only grids they produce less emissions than combustion cars do, even before you start considering transport of fuel and fuel refining.
Secondly Nuclear is not the way forward. Nuclear in all industrial instances, produces radioactive waste, it also produces irradiated contaminated waste. At current we have no other option but to bury that waste in the ground and pray it doesnt eventually leak through the corroding steel drums. There is so treatment out there right now for nuclear power plant waste.
Additionally, currently, unless you're china you cannot but a nuclear reactor in less than 8 years from project commission. By the time they're built, it will already be too late.
conventional green energies such as wind and solar, hydro and geothermal can be very stable and reliable. When coupled with source and geographic diversification and storage. There have been many papers researching this and they all come to the same conclusion. Even look at the state of South Australia. They have over 70% renewables. with big battery storage. Before they invested in renewables, they were the least stable grid in the state, they were energy dependant on other states and had the most expensive electricity prices in Australia. Now they have the second cheapest wholesale energy prices in Australia, are net exporters of electricity to other states and have the most stable grid in Australia reaching 70% renewables.
how did they do this? they diversified the type of renewables they used and the diversified, their location (part of this was rooftop solar through home solar incentives to for a VPG or Virtual Power Plant). If the wind dies down in one place, 1,000 km away its likely still windy. They also implemented storage which significantly reduced the curtailment of renewables. They did this both with grid scale battery storage, and with home storage. They are also in talks to connect their grid to Tasmania who runs entirely on Hydro, to used pumped hydro storage to further increase their storage capacity.
This isnt an uncommon or unknown thing. The EU is looking at something called the EU super grid. Which will connect Solar from countries like Portugal, wind from places like Germany and Belgium with hydro storage in places like Norway. MANY studies have been done on renewables grid stability. They almost always come to the same conclusion. On their own, they're unreliable and ineffective, Diversified by source and geography, and with storage to reduce curtailment, they are reliable and effective.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people in this comment thread are unbelievable. All you people are trying so damn hard to find a way to shoe-horn an EV into this issue. At first everyone was screaming "oh! it that fire was for sure, 100% caused by an EV!" then the fire department came out and said the believe it to be a diesel car. Then the narrative changed to "OH, its absolutely 100% a diesel - HYBRID car that started the fire!" then more footage came out and we got the number plate and turns out it was a straight and plain diesel car. not a hybrid or an EV. then the narrative shifted again to "well it would absolutely 100% be next to a EV and lit it on fire which THEN spread the fire" except that when we got the first number plate, we could see the plates for everyone parked around it. turns out according to the MOT they were all plain ICE's too. Not hybrid or electric. So then the narrative shifted AGAIN to "oh well, there must have been an EV parked in there somewhere. and THATS why it go so bad."
No. Just stop. Here's what we know and what contributed to the fire. Tell me if you spot me using the word EV anywhere in the following facts.
1.) It was a diesel ICE car that started the fire
2.) the cars around it were plain ICE cars which it then spread to. so clearly the fire had no problem spreading between ICE vehicles.
3.) the carpark didnt have a sprinkler system installed
4.) the height clearance of the carpark didnt allow fire trucks to enter. not that they would if they could... because, you know, hazard of collapsing.
5.) the fire extinguisher on that level was not operable.
6.) ICE cars burn hot enough to destroy concrete and well over the annealing temperature of structural steel. meaning the ICE cars were more than capable of reaching temperatures hot enough to cause the structure to collapse, on their own.
Notice anywhere in those facts where EV's were mentioned? Exactly. It wasnt a EV that started the fire. It wasnt an EV that spread the fire, and the fire was more than capable of causing the structural damage to collapse the carpark even without EV's being present. if there were EV's in that parking lot, which I am sure there were, statistically speaking , then it wouldnt have made a lick of difference to the outcome. it would not have made it any worse or any better.
the fact that you all are so damn determined and hell bent on making this fire, SOMEHOW the fault of EV's is honestly, disgusting. Ive never seen such a lack of intellectual integrity in a community. You claim EV fires are toxic, I think you are all worse.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How the hell did you work that out? Firstly 1L/min of hydrogen is not 1kg/min of hydrogen. Hydrogen does not have the volumetric density of water. In 6kg of hydrogen compressed to 700 bar, it equates to around 160L. If it was flowing at 1L/min it would take 2 and a half hour to fill.
Also you cannot create 6kg from a home solar array. Because it takes ALOT of energy. Let me give you a real world example. Toyota recently announced they had finished installing a Hydrogen station/production plant in one of their old factories in Melbourne Australia. Its a 200kW system. (you get 3kW from your wall outlet in Australia and just under 2kW from wall outlets in the US). with this massive 200kW electrolyser, it creates 80kg of Hydrogen in 24 hours. Meaning you will use 4,800 kWh to produce 80 kg of hydrogen (not including power needed for compression). Thats 60kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen. That also means with a whole 200kW, (more than you'd ever get to your home, solar or not) it takes 3.3 hours to make 1kg of hydrogen.
Now lets say you have an average sized roof. You would only be able to fit approximately around 7kW of solar on your roof. This would become around 5kW once it passes through the inverter. during a sunny summers day in Australia, you'd produce around 42 kWh. That would be enough energy produce, 0.7kg of hydrogen or around 1/10th of a full tank per day.
Put that on a trailer you'd be lucky to get more than 2kW of solar, meaning you'd only make 17 kWh of solar making 0.3kg of hydrogen.
That 0.7kg of hydrogen you can make at home per day, (excluding the power required for compressing it). you'd be able to travel 50 miles in a hydrogen car.
Put that same 42kWh into a Battery Electric car of the same size and you can drive 200 miles.
Take the 17 kWh from the trailer solar, for a Hydrogen car that wold get you 21 miles, Put that into a Battery electric car of the same size and it will get you 81 miles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A few misconceptions here. Firstly, it being less efficient has 2 impacts 1. If I need to build 1 wind farm with all the emissions and impacts that entails, to supply the needs of 100 drivers with EV’s I need to build 3-4 wind farms to power the needs of those same 100 people with hydrogen cars. And 2.) hydrogen plants get their power from the energy grid, unless that nations grid is 100% renewable, hydrogen has 3-4 times more emissions per mile than an EV.
And yes batteries degrade by hydrogen cars degrade faster, currently hydrogen fuel cells only last between 100,000-150,000 miles depending on the manufacturer. Why Hyundai expected to release a 200,000 miles fuel cell in late 2022. Additionally hydrogen fuel tanks are also limited in life. Most fuel cell vehicles Come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of the car to 15 years.
Meanwhile BEV batteries today are showing to have an expected life of around 500,000 miles to 70% health. Which is 30-40 years of driving for the average person.
That means you’d have to build and dispose of 2-3 times more hydrogen cars, to meet the needs of one BEV lifetime. And whilst batteries aren’t the most friendly things to manufacture, it’s a good deal better than making and then disposing of 2-3 whole cars compared to one battery.
Also fuel cells use platinum as a catalytic element which is by far more toxic than anything in a BEV.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
you dont drive the full charge of the car every day. A full charge would cost around $18.75 but that would be like saying it costs $80 per tank, then saying that would cost you $80 per day. But with the average energy price in the US of 28 cents per kWh, if you travelled 75 miles per day, (which for something like a Tesla is around or less than a quarter of its total range), you would use around 16 kWh, which would cost you $4.48 per day if you didnt have solar or an EV tarif which most energy companies offer. Over 365 days it would cost you $1,635.20. Mean while going 75 miles in a car with a fuel consumption of 29 mpg, with the average price of fuel in the US being $3.543 per gallon, it would cost you approximately $9 per day in fuel, over 365 days it would cost you $3,344.47 per year. almost 3 times as much as a BEV per mile.
and power outlets at your home only allow for around 10amps for an outlet. if you're lucky you might get to 15 or even 30 amps. But i'd be surprised if you used 70 Amps. in addition to this the gird is capable of supply every single house in that street with maximum load. Its called frequency regulation. Also no, that's not how power boxes work. The amps provided are based on how many fuses you have, the fuses will trip if that amp level is exceeded to protect the relatively thin wiring inside the home. heavier gauge wiring can handle more current, its relatively trivial to install more if needed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
well whilst the batteries do degrade, today its very slow, with modern EV batteries lasting to over 400,000 to 500,000 miles to 70% of their health. However in comparison to hydrogen they also have Batteries onboard but alot smaller 1.5-2kWh, which, because they're much smaller, wear out much faster. In addition, a fuel cell is only rated to last around 150,000 to 200,000 miles before it needs replacing and hydrogen cars come with an expiration date on the fuel cap limiting the life of the vehicle to only 15 years due to hydrogen's embrittlement of materials it comes into contact with. So whilst EV's do degrade over time, they do last much longer than hydrogen cars, and even last longer than Internal Combustion Engine vehicles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In physics there is an upper limit to the efficiency of anything. If you heat up a cup of coffee, you will never get 100% of the energy used back. No matter what you do. Hydrogen is made using grid energy. You are effectively storing eletricity as hydrogen. No matter what you do, to convert it back to electricity from hydrogen you will never ever get the same energy you used to begin with. So if you started with 100kwh of electricity, you will never ever be able to get 100kwh of electricity back when you convert the hydrogen back to electricity. Where you could have given that 100kWh directly to a battery electric car.
It will always be inefficient. That means it will always cost more per km. If you need 3x the same grid energy per mile for a hydrogen compared to a battery vehicle, you will always be AT LEAST 3 times more expensive per km.
Hydrogen fuel cells also don't output alot of power, making them very slow. That will always be the case, as the physical limitation is the surface area of the catalyst. No catalyst, no reaction. Battery electrics rely on the power output of the battery which can increase with battery size. So you will always have better performance out of a battery electric.
for example the worlds fastest Hydrogen super car, the hyperion, is only just barely as fast (not faster) than the Tesla Model S plaid. The difference between the two however is that the hyperion is a purpose built performance car, no cargo space, barely any passeneger space with only 1 passenger seat and a driver seat. the rest of the car is taken up by maximising catalytic surface area and putting in batteries required to boost power output during acceleration.
and even then. with all that efford the Hyperion does 0-60 mph in 2.2 seconds. Whilst the Model S plaid, which is a large 4 door 5 seat luxury family sedan with a normal trunk as well as a front truck too, does the same 0-60 in 1.99 seconds. Teslas Large family luxury SUV does this in 2.7s. All that performance without sacrificing practicality.
To make hydrogen practical they need to be slow. The Toyota Mirai for example having a blistering 0-60 of 9.2 seconds.
Hydrogen is also extremely explosive in the presence of atmosphere, needs to be stored at 32 times the pressure LPG is stored at, and can leak through solid metal. All of that is terrifying from a safety perspective. if you have a bad enough impact you can level a small block. ontop of that the water vapours it emits will corrode the car over time and when hydrogen leaks through solid metal, it embrittles it, making the metal increasingly delicate and liable to shatter. This means that the lifespan of hydrogen vehicles are alot less than combustion cars and even less the Battery Electrics which now have a longer lifespan the combustion cars.
There simply is no way around a lot of what I just mentioned. They are physical limitations. For domestic purposes there is no way Hydrogen will be the future. Possibly for trucking and long distance freight or shipping. But not for passenger cars you and me drive. They cost more, are slower, dont last as long and are more dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@severnsea there are lots of examples of EV fires. Yes. But even more of ICE fires. Norway has nearly 90% of all the cars on their roads today as EV. The remaining 10% split between hybrid and ICE. And yet, ICE, despite making up less than 10% of all cars on their roads, make up more than 70% of all car fires there every year.
If EV’s were such a fire hazard. Why is it that 10% of the roads population can make up 70% of car fires?
There are 40,000 car fires in Australia Every year. So that’s 400,000 fires over the last 10 years on average. And yet, over the last 10 years there’s been 4 EV fires. Just 4.
The UK this year has had some 200 EV fires. But 100,000 ICE fires. If the news reported ICE fires on the front page as much as it reported EV fires, you’d see 400 front page headlines of ICE fires for every 1 EV fire front page.
So clearly, there is disproportionate reporting on EV fires for reasons not so obscure when you look at who’s paying for full page advertising in the papers, between ICE and EV’s giving the appearance that EV’s are a fire problem when they’re just not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The names are sorta explaining the unit. kilo means 1,000. So a Kilogram, (sometimes called K-G), is 1,000 grams. kilo-gram. A kilometre is 1,000 meters, kilo-meter. Centi 1 one hundredth, there are 100 centi-meters in a meter. milli means one one thousandth, there are 1,000 mm to a meter. a milli-litre is the same, there are 1,000 mL to 1 L. Centi meter, one, 100th, So the boiling point of water is 100c and the freezing point is 0. Otherwise known as a centi-grade.
you want to have a gripe about names that actually describe what they are instead of throwing around words like chain, furlong, gill, peck, rod, fathom, acre-foot. I'd hardly be able to tell you if they were measuring length, volume or weight. meanwhile for metric, anything with meter is length, anything with gram is weight, anything with Litre is volume. and what ever is infront of those is how much of them they are. 1 kiloMETRE, 1,000 meters. 1 milliLITRE, 0.001 Litres, 1 kiloGRAM, 1,00 grams. 1 CentiMETRE, 0.01 meters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It hasnt been built yet because whilst is feasible in theory, not so much in practice. what do I mean by that? well lets look at hydrogen plants operating today. One of the most modern Hydrogen plants in the world is the freshly built hydrogen plant built by Toyota in Melbourne Australia. They converted an old factory to both produce hydrogen but also be the states first hydrogen fuel station. An entire car factory, repurposed to produce hydrogen. Keep that in mind. An entire vehicle assembly line.
Now it uses a 200kW, state of the art electrolyser to produce its hydrogen, it does so at a rate of 80kg every 24 hours. (which means you would need 4,800kWh of electricity to produce the hydrogen and 720kWh to compress it for storage, so a total of 5,520 kWh per 80kg of hydrogen). That would be enough to fill only 14 Toyota Mirai hydrogen vehicles.
an entire factory, to produce enough fuel to only top up 14 cars per day. What i'm outlying to you is how slow and energy intensive hydrogen production is.
If we scale that down to a fuel station with maybe 1/5th the size of the plant in Melbourne at best, that means you'd produce conceptually around 1/5th the hydrogen, which would be 20kg of hydrogen, or enough to top up a whopping 3 hydrogen cars per day. Which doesnt really meet demand.
Then you are wanting to use on-site renewables instead of grid energy, that means you'd get maybe at best 1/3rd the energy needs over 24 hours from the space taken up by the fuel station, (you only have so much space). that means you'd only realistically be able to produce around 1 hydrogen cars worth of hydrogen per day.
a whole fuel station which would have costs millions to retrofit to dispense hydrogen and more again for the hydrogen production equipment and renewables, to only fill up 1 car per day. Its not a great investment. Hence, not practically feasible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AzureViking you can have appoximations like that for metric too. It isnt something unique to metric. the length of your nail bed is approximately 1cm, a long step is approximately 1 meter. If you were to stand and raise one hand above your head that hand would be approximately 2m from the ground, if you reached your arms out to your sides in a T, the distance between your elbows would be around 1m. 1L of water will weigh exactly 1kg, so water like fluids, will approximate 1kg per litre, such as milk (1.035kg/L) or fuel, (0.85kg/L) So if i were to fill my tank with 10L of fuel I would assume I have added 10kg of fuel to my car. (8.5kg in reality but it can be approximated to 10kg). Typical buckets now come in L capacities such as a typical 20L bucket (like a plastic backyard bucket). If I want to know how full that will be full of water, I know that its going to be 20kg. 1L of water is 1kg.
You can find intuitive ways to approximate units from any measurement system. that doesnt make them better or worse. it just means you're used to that measurement system. You find measuring fathoms or feet intuitive against different body scales because that's what you're used to. Thats not something unique to Imperial, it just means you grew up with it. Ask any Australian to approximate a meter and they will have no trouble doing it fairly accurately. You ask them to measure an area, they'll start marching around and give you an approximation in meters according to their steps. its not unique to imperial.
2
-
@AzureViking im not saying you dont find imerpial more intuitive. I'm saying you're used to imperial and that approximating units intuitively isnt something unique to imperial.
Let me gives some more examples. Lets say you want to work out the size of your backyard so you know how much fencing to order. With metric, you just take wide steps, you take 10 steps out to the edge, then you take 20 steps along that edge, then 10 steps back to the house. the two side edges are therefore approximately 10 meters and the back edge is approximately 20m. So you need approximately 40m of fencing. Then lets say you want to work out the area. well its 10m x 20m which is 200 square meters. Done and dusted.
Then lets say you have to buy a new down pipe on the side of your house. instead of going on, measuring the diameter in inches, then converting to fractions before going and getting the pipe. for example, measuring 1.25 inches to get 1" 1/4" pipe. I can go with the tape measure, measure that its around 40mm and go to the store and ask for a 40mm pipe. If they ask how long I want it, I dont have to measure in inches then work out how many ft then inches I need having to do mental conversions between 12 inches to a foot. i can just say I need 1,700mm which is 175cm or 1.75 meters.
If I am going to measure a bolt so I can get a replacements its alot easier to measure and buy a 12mm bolt than it is to measure 0.4375 inches and convert that mentally to fractions to get 7/16th of a inch.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TanvirNa a company does a thing does not mean it’s any more viable. As for 6 hours? No. Super chargers do that in 5-10 minutes. But you only gotta do that for trips you might make once a year or less. For the rest of the time, you charge at home wasting 0 hours of your life getting fuel whilst hydrogen needs to waste as much as 16-17 hours per year on average getting fuel from a fuel station.
As for power generation. That’s what I was getting to in my previous comment. Yes, most grids aren’t fully or even mostly green. Most still run of fossil fuels but that isn’t the home run argument you think it is.
Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally in its pure form on earth. You need to split it from things. There are generally 2 ways to do this. First is green hydrogen you split from water (sounds good right?) well not really. Seeing as you need in the order of 3-4 times more grid electricity per mile to create hydrogen than a BEV needs, from the very same electricity grid so not as green, not even close there.
The other types of hydrogen production, and by far the most common, is splitting hydrogen out of hydrocarbons. And for those not in the know, hydrocarbons are fossil fuels and when you take the hydro from hydrocarbons, you’re left with just carbon.
So to do that you need to burn fossil fuels releasing CO2 to split hydrogen from more fossil fuels, which releases more CO2. This process actually creates more carbon than if you had just used the fossil fuels as a direct fuel in the first place.
So again. Not green.
Hydrogen cars are also extremely expensive to fuel, are impractical cars, have incredibly short lifespans, slower and don’t even get me started on the fuelling issues.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
well if you're looking at the big picture that sort of changes. Because hydrogen takes up a huge amount of volume. more than twice the volume per mile. The toyota Mirai is a model S sized car and it has more fuel tank storage than a Ford F250. meaning it also has so little cabin space you cant actually fold the rear seats which is a big deal because the boot is almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size.
The next thing you want to look at is lifespan. Hydrogen cars are actually extraordinarly short lived. (i know, nobody mentions that, or the 10 year expiration date they come with printed on the fuel caps). With hydrogen cars only rated to last 150,000 miles according to Toyota and Hyundai. Meanwhile modern BEV's being sold today are rated to last over 500,000 miles. and the battery replacement cost at current is only around $7k, but with the rate its falling by the time you hit the end of your battery life, it is projected to be less than $3k.
So whilst you dont need to do 0-60 in a family/commuter car, you do sorta need it to be able to carry passengers and luggage, which it cannot do very well. It also costs around 20x per mile to fuel compared to a BEV, lasts around 1/3rd of the lifespan of a BEV, and when all is said and done, the Model S actually gets further than the Mirai despite the two being similar sizes. And unlike what alot of hydrogen supporters say, you cant just add more fuel tanks to the Mirai to make it go further, that would require space to put the fuel tanks which the Mirai doesnt have any more of. Meaning no, it wont get any further. You'd just have to buy a bigger car.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@niniv2706 When I say that even on a Coal only grid. I am not talking green coal or clean coal. Im talking dirty dirty 1980's coal. EV's still produce far less emissions per mile than ICE does even before you consider the massive emissions and energy impact of refining the fuel you need to burn each mile of driving. Coal being far more dirty than natural gas. By a factor of 2.
Whilst producing EV's is a more emissions heavy process, since the cars themselves produce so little emissions over their operational life and since ICE vehicles produce so much emissions over their operational life, you only have to drive an EV between 6 months to 3 years before your emissions footprint is lower than that of a similar ICE car. (time frame varies depending on how much driving you do and what your local grid mix is.)
unlike flying cars you can buy Battery agricultural equipment. whilst the set up around these machines isnt quite there yet, such as charging infrastructure on the farms themselves. They are promising, especially from an economic standpoint. The power that the electric motors can deliver can in alot of cases out perform traditional diesel equipment. Thats why freight trains use electric motors.
Not sure what you mean by weak amp reserves. As you said, you're not an Engineer. I dont think you fully understand what you mean by that comment. amps arent power. Neither are volts. Amps x Volts is power. Most domestic homes have low voltage and high amps. But through transmission lines they have high voltage and low amps because this reduces line losses greatly. talking about amps is only talking about half the equation. literally.
Work delays depends mostly on 3 things.
1.) what equipment you have
2.) what charging infrastructure you have.
3.) how you're using it.
Take an Tesla model 3 for example. Not agriculture I know but lets look at its charging case. from a wall point it takes 24 hours to charge fully fomr 0%-100%. But thats if I drive 400km in a single day and came home rolling in on the very last electron. This never happens. people only drive maybe 100km in a day at most, meaning they'd roll in with 65% Because most people only charge to 90% (because they dont need the full 400km every day.)
Now from a wall point that only takes around 7 hours to charge. If you have a cheap home charger, you can charge that in just over 1 hour. and a full 0%-100% in 4 hours. Now some people might thing thats too long to wait but consider this. You dont use the car when you're asleep. In fact, in most cases, cars are left unattended for an average of 10-13 hours every evening/morning. And unlike fuel, you dont have to stand there holding the plug. You plug it in and walk off and in the morning you have your full range.
Now looking back at farm equipment. If you had something with sufficient battery capacity to do a days work. its downtime overnight would also be considerable (10-13 hours) unless you're a rare case that you operate your machinery 24/7 like big industrial farms do. It might take you 5-8 hours to fully charge your machinery overnight with a standard home charger which can operate off a domestic electrical system. This not only saves you money on fuel, and on parts and servicing. But it also saves you time from having to refuel your vehicles and from having fuel delivered so you have reserves on-site. You can also curtail your own electrical costs using rooftop mounted solar, and in some cases, like those who have large farm sheds, you can remove that cost entirely.
So think about that use case for battery electric agricultural equipment. But I do realise that the offerings in this category at the moment are very very slim. but it wont always be that way.
Final note though. I am not cheering to remove fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be a big part of the world for the long term foreseeable future. Not even considering the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, they have far more to offer than most people realize. From an Engineering perspective (and I am happy to explain further if you're interested) EV's are:
1.) safer to operate than ICE
2.) faster than typical ICE's
3.) Cheaper both in fuel and maintenance than ICE
4.) save you more time than ICE's
5.) Offer better features than ICE's
6.) Last longer than ICE's
Many of those seem counter-intuitive to the current narrative. However legacy automakers and big oil has done a fantastic job at seeding misinformation about EV's which becomes plainly apparent when you look at numbers and Engineering of these vehicles.
From Australia - Have a good day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
actually most modern EV's have ranges between 250 miles to 400 miles. The computers on them are smart enough to realise your destination is outside your battery range and will divert you to the nearest charger. it is also smart enough to know you dont have enough charge to get home and will again, warn you and set a navigation to the nearest charging point. If it is a super charger, it would only take around 20 minutes to get to full.
Hydrogen cant get much further than BEV's though, and need significant sacrifices just to do that. People always froth at the mount about hydrogens gravimetric energy density (kWh/kg) but completely ignore its volumetric energy density (kWh/L) which is less than half that of BEV's. That means you cant actually fit enough fuel into the car to drive significant distances. Even if you had the refuelling infrastructure. which you dont. Look at the Mirai, it only slightly larger than the Model 3, but has so little cabin space you cant fold the rear seats to extend the boot which is a big deal since the boot is almost 100L smaller than a Toyota Yaris half its size, and has no front boot. Making it extremely impractical as a taxi or family car especially when compared to BEV's. why? because they tried to stack so much fuel into it to only get 400 miles of range whilst the model 3 gets 325 and the model S gets 412. It also meant they had to sacrifice their speed, with the Mirai taking a whopping 9.1s to get to freeway speeds whilst the model 3 does it in 3.1s.
So you are paying almost 20x more per mile for something that doesnt get much further, on a tank, and is significantly slower and has an impractical amount of room, just because you might be able to fill up faster on the road, at some point in the future maybe if fuel stations decided the $1.2 million upgrade to hydrogen is worthwhile. As opposed to just charging every night at home and never needing a fuel station.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mightyweapon the production of an EV only produces 15% more emissions than the production of a similar ICE car. To give you context on how little that is, and how much better they are for the environment. To make up for that 15% more emissions on a coal only grid, the EV only has to drive 20,000 miles before it’s even with emissions to an ICE car. That’s around 1-2 years of driving. And that’s BEFORE you include the emissions produced by fuel refineries for every litre of fuel you burn.
As for disposal, even a basic google search shows that more than 95% of an EV battery is recyclable. Infact the end of life impacts between EV’s and ICE have been stated as being roughly equivalent to each other almost unanimously across the auto industry.
Lastly, yes, there isn’t really a country today on 100% renewables… yet. However why is that a bar from entry? Firstly, EV’s still produce less emission on even a coal only grid. Infact if I were to charge an EV using a cheap, small, portable generator, I’d get more range than if I had used that same fuel in even a modern conventional engine. But you think large Powerplants purpose built for efficiency would be worse than a cheap $100 pocket generator from the hardware store? Ok bud. Calm down.
Besides, even while produce less emission on dirty grids, why do they have to wait for a 100% green grid when EV’s are already cleaner than ICE and just get cleaner as the grid does, like a damage multiplier in a game reducing the emissions of TWO industries at once?
You should probably think this through more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chucknetzhammer9489 extreme cold snaps well outside of weather norms of the area so much so that it causes excessive loss of life is a natural disaster. Houses in Texas aren’t built to handle snow. They’re built to shed head easily. Not insulate against cold. Houses in Texas don’t have high capacity heating. Most homes built for that kind of low temperature have heat pump heating systems. Not resistance oil heaters.
It was the coldest event in recorded history for Texas. Damage to property due to snow build up, frozen pipes, etc, again because the houses there aren’t built for that kind of weather, was extensive. About as much damage to homes, vehicles and public infrastructure as a hurricane. For example hurricane Harvey damage cost $19 billion. This snow storm cost $125 billion in damages, to homes, vehicles and public infrastructure like pipe lines, drainage, power, roads, etc. Around 111 people died in Texas snow storm, 68 died in hurricane Harvey.
This wasn’t just “getting a little colder” this was a natural disaster in every sense of the word.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BrownSofaGamer German counterparts to Tesla aren’t really in the same league, even in performance. The Tesla model S plaid does 0-60 in 1.99s and has set the recorder for the fastest 1/4 mile time for any production vehicle. At the time the Porsche Taycan came out, it was marginally faster than the model S. (Only just). Meanwhile they both had 100kWh batteries by the model S was able to go almost double the distance on a charge than the taycan. All that whilst being a 4 door, 5 seat large luxury family sedan. Whilst the taycan with only just (back then) faster speeds but half the range and double the price.
As for the RS E-torn, 3.1 seconds to 60, a range of 290 miles on a 93 kWh battery. The Tesla model X, has a 0-60 of 2.6s, a range of 340 miles on a 100kWh battery.
The Tesla also has 78ft3 more storage space, is $20,000 USD cheaper than the Audi and has a higher safety rating than the Audi.
They’re not really comparable. There is a reason that whilst the taycan was marginally faster in specific scenarios than the model S when it was just released, that many experts noted that the Taycan was only offering range/performance/practicality of the model S a decade old but for double the price.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
actually on a per km/mile basis, it takes significantly more emissions to refine, transport and ultimately burn combustion fuel than it does to generate electricity even from a coal only grid. It also takes alot of emissions to create and refine the oil for oil replacements, to make spark plugs, oil filters, timing belts, fuel pumps, etc etc etc. EV's are more efficient, thus release significantly less emissions as they drive. Even though EV's start off with heavier emissions in production, the break even point from the reduced emissions while operating is only around 15,000-30,000 miles of driving. Further to that, EV batteries are around 95% recyclable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I would disagree with some of this. Does the 145kj/kg include compression of hydrogen to 700 bar? But the crux of what I wanted to say was that hydrogen does have a high gravimetric energy density kWh/kg. Objectively that is true. However there is a slight problem people often overlook. Which is Volumetric energy density, kWh/L. Hydrogen itself as a gas does have a high volumetric energy density at around 1.4kWh/L at 700 bar, much higher than a BEV's 0.3 kWh/L. However that isnt the full story. The space consumed by the gas isnt the only constraint. The fuel tanks are designed as an edgeless cylinder to avoid stress concentrations and such high pressures.
Looking through the cross section of the fuel tank its soon clear than you cannot neatly stack circles, especially in to a mostly rectangular geometry such as a car. hydrogen fuel tanks also have about 1 inch thick walls, adding 2 inches to its diameter. So when you work out the volumetric energy density taken up by the hydrogen, inclusive of the tank walls and wasted space around the fuel tanks (imagine the empty space fitting a circle inside a square for example). The Practical Volumetric energy density is less than 0.16kWh/L. Much less than a BEV. Not including additional space required for the fuel cells, larger cooling system and exhaust water discharge system and the small battery packs required.
This can be seen in hydrogen cars today. Lets compare two similar sized vehicles, Both mid-sized sedans. The Tesla Model 3 BEV and the FCEV Toyota Mirai.
The Mirai is 1 inch taller, 1 inch wider and 11 inches longer. Similar sizes but the Mirai is ever so slightly larger.
The Tesla Model 3 has a HUGE boot, with another boot inside it where a fuel tank would traditionally go. It has 425L of rear boot space, with another boot in the front engine bay. The Mirai however, well... the Mirai has 361L, a full 272 L of boot pace. Less than a Toyota Yaris half its size and not front trunk and its entirety is taken up by the fuel cell. In addition, unlike the Model 3, the Toyota has so little cabin space that you cant actually fold the rear seats down to extend the boost space for longer items. Whilst the model 3, you can.
This bears out a very impractical amount of cabin and cargo space for the hydrogen vehicle which only gets an additional 75 miles of range over the Tesla. Unfortinately for heavy hauling, this needs to be considered. A larger truck would need bigger fuel cell or more fuel cells to generate the power to drive the truck. A larger Lithium Battery pack to provide enough torque to the wheels through the electric motor, and more hydrogen for the increased consumption. But the Mirai, even being a mid-sized sedan has 149L of hydrogen on board, more fuel storage than a Ford F150. Building a truck with an acceptable range and towing power would be very difficult to fit in.
For reference with towing power, the Mirai has an engine sized Fuel cell, which produces only enough power to drive the car when cruising and not enough power to adequately accelerate the car, so the Mirai has 1.6kwh of batteries to provide the power to the electric motor to accelerate it at a whopping.. 9.2s 0-60mph. I would imagine that a truck would require far more torque and power, meaning bigger battery pack and much bigger fuel cells and bigger hydrogen tanks to boot.
All in all, hydrogen freighting doesnt look like it would be a good idea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well that’s a big bag of cats there. Every grid has a different mix, even locally. And grid impacts can change depending on overall demand. A power generator running slowly will be less fuel efficient than one running quickly, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, geothermal, bio thermal, solar, wind, hydro all have different impact footprints and change drastically from location to location and even time of day.
It would therefore be suffice enough to say (which he does) that hydrogen uses a percentage more electricity per unit distance than Battery Electric. So you can scale up those impacts for what ever locality you are in under the assumption the same grid supplies the energy in both scenarios.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@701983 I think the numbers are closer than that, even using your values. My understanding is that whilst 10kg cO2/kg H is correct for the actual process of the steam reformation. It doesn’t include the methane burnt in the boiler. At least 33% of the methane used in SMR is utilised for heating, not the reactions. From what I can tell this adds another 3.2kg of cO2 per kg of hydrogen.
Additionally, whilst you could say it was electricity used for compression would be generated with gas, it’s most likely being compressed using grid electricity. And if the grid is 100% coal, and badly inefficient coal at that, that would add another 2 kg, so your total now would be 17kg. Or 15kg if the SMR has its own fancy generator and isn’t connected to the we’re basing this comparison off of.
As for BEV’s, not sure how you’re getting 36% grid and charging losses. Seems like ALOT for more than a 3rd of electricity to be wasted. But here’s my breakdown. Mirai is rated at 402 miles per 5.6kg H, so it range on 1kg H is 72 miles. My Tesla model 3 over 4 years averaged 209Wh/mi. So for the same distance it will use 15kWh. (Pretty close to your 16kWh). But average charging efficiencies are around 98% from plug to battery. US transmission losses vary depending on location but from what I can read, at worst it’s around 15% and by average >5%. So if we take 5%, then we have a total loss of 8%. Making the total generated power 16kWh.
But you’re also right in that there isn’t really a pure coal grid on the planet. Also worth noting that the figures for hydrogen don’t include transportation losses, to get the hydrogen to the fuel stations.
But my numbers put them on par with one another excluding transportation losses of hydrogen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
also, most of what makes up wind turbines is recyclable, wind turbine fires are actually pretty rare, one in every 200,000 or something like that last I checked, And whilst they do kill millions of birds each year, Cell phone towers kill Billions, So do high rise buildings, transmission towers, etc etc etc, all have higher death tolls for birds per unit than wind turbines. Thats because with turbines both rotate, and make a low level humming noise, both of which scare off most wildlife. Whilst its amusing that you're frightened by big numbers, when you put into context, wind turbines are the least of your worries when it comes to bird deaths.
2
-
2
-
@orlovskyconsulting Comment 1/? well no. firstly, drive for long distance? not much more than EV's. I'll go over like for like specs but the mirai and the Tesla model 3 are both 4 door midsized sedans with similar areodynamic frontage. The Tesla gets 325 miles. The Mirai gets 400 miles. and I will go over what you trade off to get that extra 75 miles of range later. But they hardly travel much further than BEV's.
As for space. Yes there is a problem with space for Hydrogen. Firstly lets look at BEV's, They have no engine, no transmission, no exhaust and no fuel tanks. That means they have very deep boots and have converted the front engine bay into another storage compartment. They also offer generous amounts of space in the cabin, especially for the rear seats as they're not crammed and raised to go around the fuel tanks and the transmission like ICE cars. EV's have some of the largest storage and cabin spaces for cars in their respective size classes.
As for hydrogen, sadly thats not quite the case. You see hydrogen whilst being very light, is also takes up alot of volume. The Mirai takes 5.1kg of hydrogen in its fuel tanks. Which doesnt sound like alot until you realise that fully compressed, 5.1kg of hydrogen takes up 141 L of tanks space. Thats more fuel tank space than a ford F150 crammed into a mid-sized sedan. It also has to bounce this around a 1.6 kWh battery pack, a fuel cell, and exhaust system, coolant system, impact protection and an electric motor.
What this means is that the Mirai, far from having no problem with space, has less storage space than a Toyota Yarris. 100L less boot space infact. And the yarris is a car less than half its size. It has no front trunk like the Tesla either.
In relation to the cabin, there is so little cabin space in the Mirai that you cant even fold the rear seats down if you want to extend the boot. Something very easily achieved in the model 3. This, despite the Mirai being 1 inch wider, 1inch taller and 11 inches longer than the model 3.
so yes, hydrogen vehicles have a problem with space. to suggest they dont is pure denial.
2
-
@orlovskyconsulting Comment 2/? Safety is an issue in hydrogen vehicles. Not because of explosive risks. they've more than mitigated that risk. Not zero, but very mitigated. However thats not the issue, in my last comment I noted that the Mirai has a boot space significantly smaller than even a car half its size. It also does not have any storage space in the front engine bay as that is where they've fitted the fuel cell. In terms of safety the best way you can protect the tanks from puncture is to protect them from collision. The entire car is reinforced to prevent any collision from crumpling up near the fuel tanks or the fuel cell. The car is so reinforced infact that the Mirai is heaver than the Tesla model 3. This is Bad for survivability because crumple zones matter. They absorb energy and reduce the impulse of energy to an occupant.
If you're travelling in a car, what is more uncomfortable, a short sharp slam on the brakes or a slow gradual deceleration? Crumple zones matter because if you can increase the time it takes to go from moving to stationary in a collision you significantly increase the chances of survival for the occupants.
What the Mirai does is protect the fuel tanks over the occupants. You cant have you cake and eat it too. The front crumple zone is compromised to protect the fuel cell whilst in a Tesla its extended because there is nothing there. In the Mirai the rear crumple zone is compromised to protect the rear fuel cells whilst in a Model 3 its extended because there is nothing there and in a side collision the Mirai's crumple zone is compromised to protect the centre line fuel tank, whilst in a Model 3 its, again, extended.
Coupled with the fact that out of pure physical contraints the Mirai, like all hydrogen vehicles will have a higher centre of mass than an EV with a skateboard battery pack, meaning the likelyhood of a roll over is increased in the mirai compared to the the model 3 which again, reduces survivability.
Dont get me wrong, the Mirai is a safe vehicle to drive. But its not as safe as an EV. pure and simple. Designers had a choice, protect the occupants, at risk of the fuel tanks rupturing or protect the fuel tanks at the detriment of the occupants. The fuel tanks won out because an explosion from them would not only kill the occupants anyway but also anyone nearby. And i say rupture instead of puncture purposefully. The tanks are designed to vent safely when punctured. When I say ruptured I mean the vehicle had had a collision significantly enough to tear the car apart (happens all the time in high speed collision). In that event the breach in the fuel tank isn't a small controlled hole but a large tear which could be almost the size of the fuel thank. coupled with the inevitable sparks and other ignition sources likely to be occurring in that sort of collision, the result can be catastrophic. The Mirai is design to prevent that from happening by reducing the survivability of the occupants in a collision. Them is the physics. like it or not.
2
-
2
-
@stickmouse5002 In that area the Pro's and Con's between the two start to become less black and white. Hydrogen vehicles suffer from a critical lack of power. Fuel cells output very low amounts of power and need to use batteries to adequately accelerate. The limitation there is the surface area of the catalytic element in fuel cells, meaning to have more power you need to take up more space. which means less fuel.
So hydrogen trucks would be underpowered compared to their EV counterparts without making the truck prohibitively large. The Tesla Semi can carry 40T. (6T is the Cyber Truck Ute carrying capacity which again, is on-par for its size category) which for its size is pretty on-par. However there are limitations in legislation in different parts of the world which limit the amount an electric truck and tow (I am not familiar with why).
The Tesla Semi has a few advantages. First is that thanks to the power available in the batteries, the acceleration of Semi's even under load is very fast. Reducing traffic impacts, and reducing transit times which is appealing to trucking companies. They also have better turning circles and a longer lifespan than their hydrogen counterparts noting the fuel tank space requirements mentioned previously, causing the hydrogen semi truck to be larger than the Electric Semi. EV semi's such as the Tesla Semi, also have a significant advantage that the cost of electricity is significantly cheaper than the cost of hydrogen. Meaning lower operating costs, especially with the longer lifespan. Which is also very appealing to freight companies.
So EV's make a good argument for freighting semi's. However hydrogen has its advantages aswell. Hydrogen will likely be able to travel further on a tank. Which can matter in some niche circumstaces. However more broadly it would be faster to refuel a hydrogen truck than to recharge it. Suggesting that long distance freight instead of same city freight would favour hydrogen over EV as saving time would save costs, but that has to be balances with costs of operation per mile in fuel.
Another advantage is that hydrogen Semi trucks have is weight. There is an upper limit to the gross weight allowed on truck which varies between areas depending on road conditions and local/federal laws. EV's at this scale will be heaver than Hydrogen due to their scalability. (whilst in the private car scale hydrogen is only barely heavier than EV's). This means that potentially a hydrogen truck could transport more cargo before it max's its gross weight limit.
In every instance, the freight companies buying the trucks will have the weigh up the cost per mile, cost per minute, cost per kg of product, for what ever they transporting and how far they are transporting it. So it becomes very case by case as to which would be better suited.
However I predict in the future, local couriers and semi's delivering within the same city, say 400 miles radius, will most likely be Battery Electric trucks. However long distance freight will more than likely be Hydrogen, mostly due to refuelling times.
Another split would be that less weight dense products will lean towards BEV trucks whilst more weight dense products would lean towards Hydrogen trucks, due to gross weight limitations.
Hope that sort of clears things up a little bit, anything bigger than a domestic car and smaller than Train or Aircraft, and the line between EV and Hydrogen becomes kinda blurred. Similar could be said about agricultural machinery.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patrickgoncalves3878 actually there are hundreds of examples of Tesla Model S's reaching over 500,000 miles on a single battery pack with only around 20-30% degradation on batteries already more than 2 generations old. Newer batteries and Battery Management Systems (BMS) are set to last even longer and the early data indicates that this is true.
As for their popularity, the Tesla Model 3 is the most popular luxury car in any category The luxury mid sized sedan, large sedan, hatch, estate, SUV, Large SUV, Wagon, etc etc. Infact it out sold its next to closest competitors combined, beating out every other car model from Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW, Lexus and more. To say they're not popular is gross mistruth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually modern EV's have some of the most advanced battery management systems in the world on board. Making them SIGNIFICANTLY different to your iphone battery. But an EV has a cycle life of around 1,500 cycles to 80% battery health. Meaning for a model 3 with a range of 325 miles, thats nearly 500,000 miles until you reach 80% battery health. The average lifespan of a combustion engine is only between 200,000 miles to 250,000 miles. Meaning an EV should double that lifespan. (of course there are exceptions to everything. There will inevitably be combustion engines with very long lived lives.).
In the realworld we are seeing that the rate lifecycle is true, and in many case, an under estimate. For example a study of several model 3's owned by the public (individual owners submitted their cars for testing once they reach 100,000 miles). and what they found was that after 100,000 miles, the model 3's had an average battery degradation of only 2%. Meaning they have 98% battery health. That would suggest that they would well and truely overshoot that 500,000 mile mark.
That study was done on first generation model 3's. There are now more advanced batteries and more advanced battery management systems in the cars today than there was back then as Tesla continues to improve, even on a month by month basis.
2
-
2
-
@mufflerbearingR32 yeah me too. I got my new Model 3, within 3 days of taking ownership of the car, someone in a parking lot left a huge dent in the near quarter. Some guy in an SUV putting their child away, opened the door, looked at my car, and proceeded to swing the door into the car, then used the door, firmly imbedded in my quarter panel, as a surface to lean against as he strapped in his baby because apparently standing all on your own was too hard.
If I had any other car, I would either have to just cop having a brand new car with a big dent and scratch in the paint or pay for repairs myself or pay my insurance excess and cop the extra premium.
But since I had sentry mode I got his face and his license plate, The police got him to get in touch with me and trade details and it all went through his insurance. I got my car back to brand new, I didn't pay a cent or have my premiums go up.
Something similar has happened 4 times since. It really is a lifesaver. Also dog mode is a lifesaver if you have chocolate or butter sitting in the car on a summers day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stefanmetzeler you’re so ignorant. A notebook is not the same as a car. For starters, the BMS and battery architecture is completely different. Notebooks tend to have large singular battery cells. EV’s have thousands of individual cells in the battery pack. Notebooks also don’t have their batteries swimming in coolant fluid constantly keeping them within optimal operating temperatures. Notebooks don’t have charge and discharge regulators and often go from 0-100% on a daily basis, EV’s rarely go below 20% or over 90% charge in average daily use.
Most important, power consumption factors are completely different. If you get a notebook to send emails, it will last longer than if you had got it to perform Engineering computational simulations. Some people might browse one tab at a time on the internet while others might have 1,000 tabs open at a time.
Driving. Is driving. There are factors which affect range but nothing usually that extremely different from person to person. If you drive through traffic better range, if on freeway, around 10-20% less. If it’s windy, a few percent lost if you’re only travelling into the wind. If it’s raining, you lose something like 5%.
But most importantly, driving conditions in general obey the law of averages. The more you drive, the more your average range reflects the average road conditions and your average driving style. This is relatively EASY to predict. Infact Tesla’s make these predictions all the time. If you plug in a destination it tells you what state of charge you’ll have when you arrive. I’ve found it’s usually accurate to within 1 or 2%. You can reduce that more with third party travel apps like “a better route planner” in which you can enter weather conditions, tire pressure, passenger weights, etc.
Unfortunately for computers use, there isn’t a typical average, or any accurate average, as the use of each computer varies so wildly from person to person. Job to job. Where as cars will always typically drive on roads. They are only used for driving. And the driving conditions are predictable. And you’d agree with that if you ever quote the google maps drive times when giving an estimated time of arrive to someone.
You are so profoundly ignorant of the technology or even what makes a sensible argument. You claim you don’t use anecdotal evidence. And none of your evidence is anecdotal. Yet you keep claiming “well this German guy got a new car and it wasn’t electric” as evidence electrics don’t work well. that’s the definition and anecdotal you muppet
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you meant effect. not efficiency. In any case, Inside a Tesla, even when hard acceleration, EMR (Electro Magnetic radiation) inside the car is lower than background EMR outside the car. Additionally, EMR has little to no effect on the human body, on account of most bodily tissue not having magnetic properties. If it makes you feel better, you get more EMF from your phone or computer than you do inside a Tesla. Because they aren't shielded. In additional cell phone signal, Wi-Fi signal, they're both EMR based. You will get orders of magnitude more EMR from your Wi-Fi router alone than even standing next to a Tesla launching. Yet alone your lights, phone (which you keep in your pocket) microwave, power outlets etc etc etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
well actually no. thats not the full story, BEV's are buy in large, lighter than their Hydrogen counter parts. The Mirai, a mid-sized sedan, is heavier than the Telsa model 3, also a mid sized sedan. Why is this so? because Hydrogen requires the chassis to be greatly stiffened to divert crash energy around the fuel tanks. This reduces crumple zone reducing overall safety but also greatly increases the weight. So while the power train of hydrogen is exceptionally light compared to BEV's Hydrogen vehicles weigh more. This doesnt get better with size either, as larger sizes need larger battery sizes (hydrogen needs batteries because they cant supply the power flow required to accelerate the vehicle adequately.). Lets look at the Hydrogen semi, the Hyundai Xcient vs the Tesla Semi, the Tesla Semi, unloaded weighs, (estimated) 9.5T, the Xcient weighs 9.7T. in addition the Semi, from on road testing, can go over 500 miles fully loaded while the Xcient can only do 400 miles fully loaded. Additionally the Xcient cant reach freeway speeds even unloaded whilst the Tesla semi while fully loaded can still out drag most cars on the road. Depsite the Xceint have a 75 kWh battery, the same size battery as the long range Model 3.
Another thing to consider with cargo and passengers is space. in Litres (L), BEV's have around 0.71 kWh/L volumetric energy density, Hydrogen itself as a gas has 1.4 kWh/L. So no brainer? not quite. Hydrogen has to be stored in fuel tanks. Those fuel tanks are round tanks fitting into a rectangular base. (fit a round peg into a square hole and notice the empty space). the hydrogen system also requires 1 inch fuel tank thicknesses, adding 2 inches to the diameter, all together that brings the practical volumetric energy density of hydrogen down to 0.62 kWh/L, add the inefficiency of the access to the power (only 60% used by the fuel cell) and you get 0.37 kWh/L less than half the 0.71 kWh/L of BEV's.
That means you have less space for passengers and cargo. Not only that but you also have to add a battery pack to the hydrogen can plus a fuel cell. This sacrifice in space can be seen in the Mirai, The mirai is a whole foot longer than the model 3 but identical cross sectional size. The mirai has no front trunk like the model 3, it has so little cabin space that a groove had to be cut out of the roof to allow legally adequate head room, and the rear seats dont even have enough space to fold down unlike the model 3 which is a big problem, because whilst he model 3 has a very large boot, the Mirai has a boot 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yarris half it size.
So no, you dont get alot of space. You can also see this in the Xcient as it takes up vertical space on the trailer bed reducing the vertical height for cargo, it also extends the rear of the semi's bed much longer out taking up almost a full trailers width, this significantly impacts its turning circle, something the Battery Electric Tesla Semi doesnt have a problem with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
it could. yes. But it wont make a big impact. Even on a BEV which can get significantly further on the same amount of energy cannot extend its range very far with solar mounter to the roof of the car. A car typically has between 1.5-2 m2 of roof area, as you need to use some of that for front and rear windows you get around 0.5-1m2 of available roof area in which you could mount solar panels.
as a general rule of thumb, solar panels produce 1kW per m2. so best case you'd be getting 1kW peak during a sunny mid-day. I can do the maths for you if you want but for a long range model 3, driving an average speed of 47mph, (75km/h) you'd get an extra 41 miles (66km) bring your range from 325 miles to 366 miles. (around a 13% increase in range assuming a perfectly sunny day and a noon sun lasting more than 8 hours). for a standard range model 3, you'd only gain an extra 28 miles (45km) which is a 11% increase in range. Considering mid-day sun doesn't last 5-8 hours, we'll assume the standard solar utility factor of 30%. So you'd actually only gain 4% for the long range and 3% for the standard range.
Now if we look at hydrogen, like the Mirai, uses 5.6kg to get 400 miles. (0.014 kg/mile). Hydrogen has an energy density of 33.6kWh/kg so it uses 0.47 kWh/mile. We know that producing hydrogen is at best around 70% efficient. We also know it needs to be compressed which is at best 85% efficient. Meaning only 59.5% of the energy ends up as hydrogen. so our 1kW becomes 0.595 kW, plus out 30% utilisation factor, making it 0.18 kW from solar into hydrogen. What this means is that we can only boost our range by 4.6 miles (1.1% increase).
It does increase efficiency and range, but not by alot, especially for hydrogen. 3-4% for BEV's and 1% for hydrogen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Elon was right, and There’s a lot he’s missing here. For starters,
1.) the cost of running a hydrogen vehicle will always been much higher than a BEV, even on energy costs alone. And all the “cheap” ways to produce hydrogen all produce carbon emissions which defeat the purpose.
2.) Hydrogen cells, as he mentioned don’t produce a lot of power, that’s why the mirai is so slow. The less power you can give to an electric motor the slower it becomes. That is also why most hydrogen vehicles on the market have large battery packs in them (less than a BEV but more than a hybrid). That’s because batteries can output large amounts of energy, quickly. So vehicles like the mirai don’t have enough power from the fuel cells to adequately accelerate the vehicle. But have more than they need to “cruise” meaning they charge up the battery as they drive, and the battery is what launches the vehicle. The big drawback is that the smaller your battery pack, the lower power you can supply. Giving BEV’s the distinct advantage there.
Infact, the only way to make hydrogen fast is if you increase the catalytic surface area. Meaning you’d have to sacrifice practicality to do so. For example, to increase catalytic surface area you’d have to reduce fuel tank capacity to make room, cargo space to make room and cabin space to make room. To get a hydrogen vehicle like the large luxury 4 door, double boot family based Model S, you’d need a purpose build 2 door no boot hydrogen vehicle. You won’t ever get a hydrogen vehicle that’s as quick as a BEV whilst also working as your daily driver.
3.) safety, hydrogen is extremely explosive and needs to be stored at pressures 32 times higher than LPG. That’s a lot. Hydrogen, which is explosive with even minute traces of air, is also so small it can leak through solid metal. They also have an inherently higher centre of gravity when compared to a BEV. But they’re so unsafe that hydrogen vehicles are designed to sacrifice their occupants survivability to protect the fuel tanks because of the risk of explosion which could kill pedestrians and other people and vehicles nearby. All while BEV has such a low centre of gravity that they’re nearly in-rollable, have double the crumple zone and are shown to be dramatically safer than combustion vehicles.
So to summarise, BEV, are cheaper than hydrogen, faster than hydrogen whilst still being practical daily drivers and are much safer than hydrogen. There really isn’t a case for hydrogen what so ever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let’s do some corrections shall we?
-hydrogen source: water, but for large output, electrolysis won’t keep up with demand. You’d need to get hydrogen from hydro carbons. Aka fossil fuels.
-carbon footprint: larger than BEV’s this is because to get hydrogen you either have to pump more energy into water than you get out, or you get it from fossil fuels. Either way, you’re producing at best 4 times as much emissions as a BEV because you’re using 4 times as much electricity per mile to make the hydrogen.
-additional environmental impacts: high actually. Fuels cells don’t last as long as batteries and contain rare and highly toxic metals inside them.
-EV batteries are actually around 96% recyclable, including all the metals and lithium which can be re-used near infinitely.
- the model 3 has one of the lowest 5 year depreciations ever recorded. It’s re-sale is fine. Dealers don’t want them because they aren’t yet equipped to service them. And need less maintenance so they get less commission from servicing compared to ICE.
- “EV’s still require power from gas, crude oil or nuclear to recharge” yes but where do you think the 4 times higher electrical load per mile of producing Hydrogen comes from? The very same grid. So while yes. You do need to use a dirty grid to charge. bEV, you need 4 times the energy per mile from the Same grid for hydrogen. Without the possibility of charging from home solar.
-you won’t be filling your car with water. Sorry to burst that bubble. Hydrogen releases energy when its combined with oxygen to create water. So think about it for a second. You are taking water, using energy to split it into hydrogen and oxygen, recombining the hydrogen and oxygen into water to create water, and taking the energy from that to split more water AND run a vehicle? No. Sorry. You are starting with water and ending with water. And you expect excess energy from that process? That’s like plugging a power board into itself and expecting unlimited electricity. Doesn’t work.
Think about it, if it did, why not just re-use that water over and over again. A glass of water to produce all the energy needed for the whole world from here until the end of time. Split the water, combine the water, wash rinse repeat. You really expect energy to just appear from nowhere, made up out of thin air? Get real.
“Failure of EV green hype” what failure? EV’s are some of the best selling cars in the world at the moment. It’s also the fastest growing sector in the car market. What failure?
None of this even addressing the utter impracticality of hydrogen in vehicles.
1
-
1
-
@AGGELIAFOROS most of it is due to lack of investment. There are ways you can stablise renewables, diversification in both geography and generation type, as well as fairly minimal storage. For example the state of South Australia in Australia went from being the most unreliable grid in the country, with the highest wholesale prices and was dependant on other states for the majority of their energy. They invested heavily in renewables with a science based approach (not a virtue signalling approach like California). Now they 70% renewables grid with out a single 150MW big Battery storage farm, They are not the most stable grid in the country consistently remaining operational and even keep other states above water during nation gird events, they have the second lowest wholesale electricity prices in Australia and are net exporters of energy to other states.
Its not that it cant be done, or we don't know how to do it, or that it cant be done rapidly (in SA, we're talking 10 years to do this). The problem is politicians wont do it. In almost every major economy, you will find oil and fossil fuel companies being some of the biggest political donors out there. Especially in Australia, the Federal government ran a smear campaign against the shift, especially the big battery even going as far as the now priminister of the country saying the state government was stupid and, on live TV, spewing blatantly false information as to what the battery actually does.
Thats the only real hurdle here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kacper3586 H2 power station would be pretty useless. Additoinally whilst it costs $1.2 million to retrofit a fuel station to dispense hydrogen it only costs $0.25 million to build a bank of superchargers.
But thats not the only costs. There is the fact that it takes ALOT of electricity and resources to make hydrogen in the first place. Thats why the cost of hydrogen is around 20x per mile than it is for a BEV to charge per mile. Thats not inconsiderable either.
The reason why a hydrogen powerplant would be fairly useless is because its not a power plant, and its inefficient. You are storing energy as hydrogen, you lose around 40% of your energy converting energy into hydrogen. Then you have to turn it back into electricity, in which you lose a further 40% of your remaining energy. The end result is that for every 100kWh of electricity you put into making the hydrogen, you get out only 35 kWh. Thats a loss of 65kWh, almost 2/3rds of your energy is wasted down the drain.
Why on earth would you do that when you could just store it in batteries, kinetic storage, liquid salt storage, pumped hydro storage, gravity storage, and more. All of which are far far more efficient than storing it as hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s clearly worse. Fuel cells don’t last as long as batteries, they have notoriously low power output making the cars themselves slow and needing lithium batteries anyway just to accelerate, the fuel takes up a huge amount of volume meaning no, they can’t get further than EV’s because you don’t have enough physical space to put the fuel to do so. That also means you have drastically reduced cabin space and boot space making them vastly more impractical to own. Infact, if you were a taxi driver, it would be more practical on space constraints alone to buy a TOYOTA YARIS than a Toyota Mirai as it has both better passenger space AND boot space.
Additionally due to the energy and logistical requirements, the fuel will always cost significantly more per mile than it costs to charge a BEV per mile.
Where’s the competition? BEV,s last longer, go further, have far better cabin and boot space, cheaper to operate, have better performance, and are generally safer designs. I see no competition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnpowell8188 well my claim wasnt that charging from diesel was clean, or fast. Just that it was more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a diesel generator than to use that same diesel in a conventional diesel car.
But lets begin with the proof. Lets look at the fuel consumption of a small portable diesel generator, lets say 8kW genny, fuel consumption at full load is 2.1L/hour. So thats 2.1L/8kWh = 0.26L of diesel per kWh produced.
So how far does say, a Tesla Model 3 get on a a single kWh? well my model 3 since I've taken ownership almost 2 years ago has consumed a measured average of 0.13kWh/km which is (if you invert it, =1/0.13) 7.69km/kWh. So my fuel consumption is 7.69km for every 0.26L of diesel if charging from the generator, which works out as 29.5km/L of Diesel.
This means it has a fuel economy of 3.3L/100km once you invert as above to flip from km/L to L/km then multiply by 100km.
3.3km/L is also 71.3 mpg in freedom units.
How does that stack up? well a conventional diesel car the same size as the Tesla Model 3 is the Mazda 3 diesel, which has a fuel economy of 5.7L/100km (41.3 mpg). A smaller diesel car which is significantly lighter, and has less wind resistance and rolling resistance is the VW Golf TDI, which has a fuel economy of 5.6L/100km (42 mpg) but can be as low as 4.6L/100km on the freeway (51.1 mpg)
SO! You can see that even from charging your EV from a cheap portable generator, it would still be more fuel efficient than putting it into a even a a modern conventional diesel engine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingFergus 3.)Charging from fossil fuels. As previously mentioned even charging from a coal only grid, EV's still produce much less emissions than a ICE. Even before you consider the emissions and energy used to refine the fuel in the first place. For example, on a coal based grid, Coal produces about 1,000g of emissions per kWh, meaning something like a model 3 would produce 130g of emissions per km. By comparison for a Petrol car to reach that same emissions, it would have to average a fuel efficiency of 5.6L/100km or 42mpg for a petrol car. For diesel you'd have to get an efficiency of 4.8L/100km or 49 mpg. And thats just for a mid-sized sedan. And thats not even including refining and transporting the fuel It will also get worse for ICE as you diversify your grid away from coal, and towards, gas, oil and renewables which are all drastically lower emissions. But most grids in the world are mixed grid. they are rarely coal only. Even in the US where the majority of power generation comes from Gas
So charging from fossil fuels, still better than ICE cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually no for 3 reasons.
1.) Hydrogen is expensive. Why is the important to being environmentally friendly? well the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is by getting it from fossil fuels which are hydro-carbons. This means using electricity to split the fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) into hydrogen and oxygen, you can capture the hydrogen but often the carbon is released into the air. With green hydrogen costing more than 2.5 times the cost of petrol per miles currently, cheaper alternatives would be very appealing.
2.) Fuel cells use platinum. Platinum is an extremely toxic element. There are machining wastes to deal with when producing fuel cells for hydrogen vehicles, But further to that, it has to be dealt with when the car is at its end of life. which is concerning given point 3 below, especially since its orders of magnitude more toxic than anything found in a lithium battery if exposed to the environment.
3.) Hydrogen vehicles dont last very long. Its not a widely advertised fact as the media has a bias for hydrogen and against EV's (buy in large), by hydrogen vehicles roll off the factory floor with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of hydrogen vehicles to 10 years from the date of manufacture. EV's on the other hand (again, contrary to popular belief due to media bias) last a very long time, modern EV batteries are designed to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles with the batteries being the biggest limitation to the life of the vehicle. This represents an average of 30-40 years worth of driving for the average person and is double the average lifespan of a typical combustion engine.
What that means is that for every EV you own to the end of its lifetime, you'd have to manufacture and dispose of 3-4 hydrogen vehicles and all the emissions that go with manufacturing and disposing of an entire hydrogen vehicle. (including disposal of the platinum from the fuel cell).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well because there are just a tad few more variables which impact what you’re asking for. For example with manufacturing. It depends on the size of the Sedan (small, mid, large etc) the trim level (standard, base, luxury, sport, performance etc). It also depends where it’s made, I don’t mean country, I means where in what country, your energy mix you get can vary even with a few hundred miles, power energy mix in Nevada is very different to California for example. There are a lot of variables here. You can’t give hard or fast numbers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would argue they aren’t a bad idea, far less likely to combust, 95% of the batteries are recyclable including all the lithium, cobalt and nickel. Even on a coal only grid produce less emissions than a car even before you consider the impact of fuel refineries. They produce far less microparticle emissions, which are so bad if you live within 15 miles of a freeway your life expectancy drops by as much as 15 years and causes brain developmental issues in children. And tailpipe emissions are the leading cause of Micro particle emissions.
They also can be run on home solar and because they don’t have any regular servicing requirements, they are significantly cheaper to run than a combustion car, in some cases saving as much as $6,500+ per year on fuel and servicing. Meaning whilst the upfront cost is higher, over its lifespan, it can become cheaper than some very cheap economy cars like an entry level Toyota Camry after as little as 5 years of driving.
Aside from having better safety in that they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust, 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and have no engine at the front increasing crumple zones which increases survivability, as well as having extraordinarily low centre of gravity which drastically reduces roll over risk, which again, increases survivability.
I think they’re not bad. I think they’re very good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@middleagedbaldguy6774 You're right in that Ford have more experience with building trucks, they've also been mass producing for much longer which means they've already eliminated the problem like panel gaps that come when you step up to mass production for the first time. But Tesla has more experience than any other auto manufacturer in making EV's. Thats why even the likes of Porsche with all the effort they put in, couldn't produce anything that met what Tesla's was capable of doing 10 years earlier. That being said, This year seems to be the first year other Auto Makers are putting in a solid effort instead of making compliance cars.
Additionally Tesla doesnt have any dealerships. I forgot to mention that in the last comment. And they dont have service centres (you can book service with them but there is maybe one place in every city) and there is a good reason for that. EV's dont need servicing. I'm not sure if anyone has ever told you this but there arent any regular services required for Tesla's. They have no engine oil, no transmission, no spark plugs, no oil filters, no air filters, no timing belts, no fuel pumps, no fuel filters, no distributors, no differentials, no sumps. There is nothing to service on them. They have an axel running to a bi-directional Electric motor which operates as motor, transmission and differential all in one. sitting above a battery pack, designed AS THE CHASIS, to protect the batteries, with a quarter inch Titanium plate running the length of the undercarriage to protect it from anything which would try to penetrate it from underneath.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True but also not true. The customer wants an EV. They don’t want THEYRE EV’s. Simply because they aren’t competitive. Tesla has been making EV’s for the last 10 years. They also have a drastically different business model which has allowed them to have the highest profit margin on any car sold on the market today. So they can and have been cutting prices to stay competitive. The way they’ve manage that is they build their own car from the ground up. And the support network with it. Like the Tesla super charger network.
That means every part in a Tesla is made by Tesla for Tesla. The programming, infotainment system, sound system. Motors. Seats, interior. Etc. Legacy automakers outsource that. They get someone else to design the infotainment system, and someone else to program it, someone else to build the engine, and someone else to design the interior and someone else to make the seats. They just assemble it. What that means is a lot of middle men taking a cut.
Couple that with the fact that legacy automakers not only aren’t set up to make EV’s and don’t have the 10 years experience of making and perfecting EV’s, means not only do they produce a product that can’t compete with Tesla’s they’re also needing to charge more for it. So you pay a lot more to get a lot less. Not only that but legacy automakers sell exclusively through dealerships which charge a markup on the cars to make bank. Tesla sells direct toy the customer.
So naturally consumers don’t want to pay a heap more to get a lot less. Where good EV’s have been dropped at a good price point, consumers have jumped on it. That’s why the Tesla model Y is the best selling new car globally in 2023.
Which is why cars like Mercedes EV offering, the EQ, isn’t selling. Because even if the EQ was at the same price point of a similar sized tesla, it wouldn’t be competitive. It would have the range, performance, software advancements or charging infrastructure and network that the tesla has. But Mercedes is asking for an extra $150k for it. Plus another $12k for the dealer. And then wonder why it isn’t selling?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AllThingsRamdom I don't think you understand. when you strip electrons away, it's given back by a donor near by, the next atom near by then donates to the original donor, ultimately this continues as a chain (visible as a spark or bolt of lightning) until it find a earth or grounding point. The gounding point or earth GIVES AN ELECTRON which means all the gasses going in are not ionized. As a donor electron is given by a grounding point. They arent consumed by grounding, they are DONATED by grounding.
Additionally, removing an electron does not change the composition of elements or molecules, That would need them to gain or lose protons. NOT electrons. The only thing that achieves is change the polarity of its state of charge. which is an electrical and magnetic property. It will have ZERO effect on combustion. As the chemical bonds and compositions going into the reaction are the same going out of the reaction.
and whilst the power required to strip an electron, is small. the AMOUNT of electrons in a small amount of air is enormous. and ALOT of that energy is lost as heat and more importantly, light, when you strip an electron. In fact this is how NEON lights work.
LEAN SOME BASIC PHYSICS Not only would all the air atoms going in, have all their electrons immediately after you attempt to ionise them, meaning you wont be inputting any ionized air what so ever, even if you did it would have NO effect on combustion NONE.
So lets follow this. You put in energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You somehow separate the hydrogen and for some reason yeet the oxygen. You new have less energy in the form of hydrogen than you used to get the hydrogen. You then ionize the intake air, which immediately is grounded by the vehicle meaning the air is no longer ionized but regular air milliseconds after expending the energy. The net result you spend energy creating alot of light and a little bit of heat.
that air goes into the chamber to be reacted with hydrogen in a combustion which rapidly expands the gasses inside the chamber and also creates water vapour. This drives the car, Less energy is released by the combustion in relation to pressure than you initially had in hydrogen, most of the energy is lost as heat and sound, and a little to light. You then turn the pressure energy into mechanical energy, which again, suffers and efficiency loss. Most of that energy goes towards driving the car, some of it goes to creating more hydrogen which means converting the mechanical energy into electrical energy, which once again, suffers and efficiency loss.
All you are doing is wasting energy. There is no part in that process which yields more energy than you began with.
you need to learn some basic physics. I cant spell this out any clearer for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arcanevoid9199 Everyone who drives my Tesla never think it has a lack of character. In addition thats a common myth. Whilst the batteries are heavy, the car also does not have an enigne or transmission taking up a bulk of the weight. EV's actually weigh around the same as other vehicles in its class. Take for example the Tesla model 3. its a mid-sized luxury sedan. (the luxury part makes a difference because luxury features inside a car weigh significantly more). It weighs a maximum of 1850kg. (lighter versions weigh 1600kg). In the same size and class category, there is the BMW 5 series and the Auto A6 quattro which are both similar in size and performance to the model 3. The BMW weighs 1900kg and the Audi weighs 1990kg. with the model 3 being the lightest of the 3.
how you work your suspension, no matter the weight of the vehicle, makes a dramatic difference to the feel and handling of the car.
You are arguing against yourself in alot of way. You're arguing that a drivetrain unlike any other car on the road, that is at current extremely unique in its performance characterises, somehow has no character. really the only think it lacks is sound. and sound alone does not constitute character or feel of a car.
there is a very good reason that an EV is rated as one of the most satisfying cars to drive. There is a reason that a vast portion of EV owners are ex BMW owners. There is reason that Tesla has one of the highest customer retention rates of any car company. and its not because the cars they make are souless, lack character or are boring. I've driven a model S and it belt completely and utterly like an entirely different beast to my model 3. I've also driven an electric Kona which feels incredibly different again. EV's also dont have a flat power profile, I know that my car, whilst is sharp off the line, kicks in way more power around 60km/h and drops back around 80km/h. I know that the 2 wheels drive model 3 has a slower 0-60 than the awd performance model 3 but a faster 60-100 time than the performance model 3.
you think they're flat and linear because you've been told they are. In reality they are not. They're just more flat and linear than a combustion engine. Trying taking one for a test drive and tell me it wasn't an exhilarating experience. that it wasn't more fun than most of the other cars that you've driven and that it was soulless and lacking of character and that it was boring.
as a next best thing, finding someone who has driven one and ask them if they found it boring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
some comments and your points.
1.) demand doesn't necessarily peak that much from charging EV's. EV"s can be charged with as little current draw as a toaster uses.
2.) EV's are typically charged when demand is lowest. This actually increases power plant efficiencies reducing the cost of power.
3.) only very selective cities have regular brownouts. Most are fine. The ones that arent is due to poor infrastructure management and planning and political interference in them. California is a great example of when politicians decide to play Engineer.
4.) Typically, modern EV's have rages around 250-300 miles. Most people doing beach trips live closer than 2-3 hours drive of a beach. having to suffer 4-6 hours drive round trip takes up most of your day. Meaning the ranges on current generation EV's would be sufficient without charging for most cases. Additionally for coastal states and countries such as Australia, the majority of the population lives within 100km (around 60 miles) of the coastline. So again, modern EV charge ranges are sufficient. So that means in your scenario it isnt everyone trying to get a charge.
Then we have to consider that, that will likely not be the only fuel station with charging points. Additionally fuel stations arent the only place you would have charging points unlike fossil fuels. Meaning there would be far more places to get a charge. For example its becoming more common for beach side carparks to have their own chargers (between 3-6 typically). Although not rapid chargers, a 4 hour stay at those chargers will do you to 100% from 0. But since most people dont roll in on their last electron the average stay would be between 1-2 hours while they're at the beach enjoying themselves. Dad comes back and moves the car once its charged to let the next person who rolls in use it. Keeping in mind that even if you're not using the charger and you're waiting. its a beach side carpark, you can park and enjoy the beach while you wait.
But they wont be the only ones with chargers, Cafe's super markets, council parking spots are all getting more and more of these destination chargers, whilst more and more fuel stations and super charger stations are being built with rapid chargers. So the idea that the only place to get a charge would be 4 bays in a single fuel stations is misleading today yet alone in 20-30 years when EV's make up 50% of the vehicles on the road.
5.) Whilst power plants certainly use fossil fuels, EV's are still far more efficient and produce far less emissions than a combustion car in 3 ways.
A.) Even on a coal only grid (which isnt even the case in the US), EV's still produce significantly less emissions per mile than Combustion cars do even before considering the emissions produced by fuel refining and transport. Infact, its actually more FUEL EFFICIENT to charge your EV with a cheap small portable generator than it is to use that same fuel in a similar sized car.
B.) Even the US isnt a fossil only grid. Infact the nation grid in the US is around 33% emissions free/renewable energy and that fraction is growing steadily. whilst 66% is of fossil fuels with 32% of that being Gas which is one of the more emissions friendly fossil fuels to use in power plants. All making the emissions efficiency of EV's higher.
C.) ALOT of people have home solar and more and more are getting home solar which further reduces the emissions impact of EV's on the energy grid.
Hopefully this cleared up some misconceptions for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
um. no. not quite that simple. Even the most fuel efficient fuel cells use around 3-4 times as much grid electricity to create 1 miles worth of hydrogen than if you had just put that electricity into a BEV. That means if you had 1 wind farm to power the needs to 1,000 people with BEV's, with all the tax payer cost, emissions and materials required to build and operate it, you would need 3-4 wind farms to power the needs of those same 1,000 people with hydrogen.
additionally no, you wont get similar ranges. the efficiency is there sure, but the fuel isnt. Everyone says hydrogen is very energy dense. What they mean is its gravimetrically energy dense (kWh/kg), but hydrogen practically is not very Volumetrically energy dense (kWh/L). With batteries well more than double the volumetric energy density. What that means is you dont really have the space to physically put the fuel to go as far as an ICE. whilst hydrogen cars in most cases get only about as far as their equivalent BEV's competitors, even when sacrificing cabin and boot space to do so, and in some cases, they get less. (hydrogen truck the Xcient for example gets 400 miles fully loaded whilst the Tesla Semi gets 500 miles fully loaded.)
Just look at the model 3 vs the toyota Mirai, Both are in the mid-sized sedan class, the Mirai being a little longer than the model 3 but otherwise being near identical in size. Despite this extra length, the Mirai has a boot size almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size and has so little cabin space you cant even fold the rear passenger seats to extend your abnormally small boot, all to fit 150L of hydrogen tanks (more fuel tank capacity than a ford F150) to get 400 miles. The model 3 gets 325 miles (only 75 miles less) to a charge, but it not only has a huge rear boot with a second large boot compartment inside the rear boot but also has a front boot. It also has class leading cabin space and the rear seats do fold.
The Mirai is efficient for a hydrogen car using its fuel cell. Less efficient hydrogen cars will either get less range or have less space for people and cargo. Combustion hydrogen is less efficient again. (Fuels cells are roughly 45-60% efficient, combustion hydrogen is 20-25% efficient), meaning they get even less range.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xrsuperduper7660 Wind Turbines are a very very small fire risk. If you look at the statistics, your car is more likely to spontaneously combust than a wind turbine is. In addition, hydraulics leaks are very minimal, however there is a much greater chance of environmental impacts from fuel leaks or hydraulic leaks for fossil fuel power plants.
Not sure where you think micro plastic contamination is going to come from, from wind turbines, once again, due to admin and logistics and maintenance requirements of traditional fossil fuel power plants, they produce far more plastic waste than a wind turbine ever will.
And birds? please, whilst its adorable that you're intimidated by large numbers, but high rise buildings, transmission towers and cellphone/radio towers kills between 10-100x more birds per year each than wind turbines do.
That is because wind turbines emit noise, surprisingly a lot of it. This low lever hum actually deters wildlife from going near the turbines. No such humming exists for transmission towers radio/reception towers or for high rise building with glass that birds contently run into. If you think wind turbines are terrible for birds you must think that transmission towers are apocalyptic. yet I don't see you campaigning to get rid of those.
1
-
@xrsuperduper7660 Once again. the facts dont support you. As I said, more birds are killed each year from cellphone towers alone than from wind turbines, on account of the birds avoiding the moving and audible machinery. So again, whilst its cute that you're impressed with big numbers, context goes a long way here. To quantify this, a study in 2009 studies data and found, quote: "wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh"
Further to that another study from Canada supplied a table which showed the top 10 biggest man made causes for bird mortality, which included power line collisions (not electrocutions) at 3rd place were responsible for 16,810,000 bird deaths. houses (low mid and high rise) in 7th place were responsible for 1,317,130 bird deaths plower line electrocutions in 9th place with 184,300 bird deaths but no information on wind turbines because they didn't even make the top 10
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually the electric motors in a Tesla are VERY different in design and functionality than a Prius. Tesla also pioneered the skateboard battery pack given them the lowest center of gravity of any production car leading to extremely good handling and safety and the only SUV ever to have gotten a 5 star safety rating thanks to its resistance to rolling over.
Tesla are also the closest car company to achieving level 5 full self driving. A feat you can’t achieve with lidar. But you can with camera’s and in doing so, provide their customers with “autopilot” which, whilst other car companies have attempted to replicate, Tesla’s the only one who can offer anything more than adaptive cruise control that isn’t geofenced.
Tesla are so close to level 5 because unlike every other car company all their cars came standard with all the sensors to record all the data required to develop it. So their consumers pay Tesla for the cars, and teslas cars all collect billions of miles of data every year. Every other car company has to supply a modified car to test drivers they pay to collect data, leading to a costly exercise for the company which yields only hundreds of miles of data.
Tesla also pioneered free over the air updates ensuring their cars improve as time goes on, all without having to go and making a hours long booking at a service centre.
Tesla has been doing this since 2012, Mercedes are the first other car company to start doing this in 2021 with a paid subscription.
Tesla is also the only car company to do away with android auto and apple car play, in favour of a built in connection that is built around their cars. It also uses it’s over the air abilities (not from your phone connection) to give access to Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, etc. giving the most advanced infotainment system on the market.
Tesla was also the first car company to make cars with app connectivity. They only car company not use keys or fobs, but your phone as the key. The app can call your car out of a parking spot, allow you to lock or unlock the car, let someone remotely drive it, flash lights, honk the horn, see its location, speed and direction in live time, open and close windows, operate climate controls and heated seats, adjust speed limit of the car, and acceleration, lock out the console, open and close the front and rear boots, and see if any doors, windows, hoods, boots, or charging caps are open or closed, all from your phone and all from anywhere in the world.
The next closest thing to this is fords offering which can only unlock the car via the app and turn the aircon onto its last set setting and start the engine, but only when it is within Bluetooth range of the vehicle. And that’s it. Even in 2020.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not quite how that works bud. With any new technology, initial costs are high. Very high. Unlike existing technologies which have massive infrastructure to mass produce units extremely cheaply with capital equipment which has already been paid off. New technologies simply don’t have that massive supply/demand infrastructure, manufacturing infrastructure which has already been long paid off. In addition EV’s are fighting quite a bit of misinformation being spread by oil companies. Here are a few quick examples
1.) EV’s are a fire hazard: false, they are universal recognised as being 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to combustion cars.
2.) EV batteries don’t last long: false, EV batteries in current cars are set to last well over 500,000 miles (around 800,000km). (Compared to average combustion engine lifetime of 250,000-300,000 km) In addition previous generation batteries are already showing their ability to well surpass 500,000 miles of driving.
3.) EV’s cost more in servicing: false, EV’s don’t have transmissions, spark plugs, oil replacements, fuel pumps, timing belts, oil filters, etc etc etc. they require zero regular maintenance. They are for the most part, service free.
4.) EV’s can’t drive far enough: false, most EV’s these days can drive up to or well over 400km to a charge. Much more than your daily commutes. Most people only travel further than those distances once or twice a year.
5.) You’ll be waiting hours to charge your EV: False, whilst it takes hours to charge from a home charger (1-4 depending on battery level). You won’t be waiting for it. EV’s are typically plugged in at home when you’re not using it. You get home, plug it in, continue with your evening, dinner, family time, sleeping, morning rituals, before coming back to the car. The car has on average between 10-14 hours in which it can take its 1-4 hours to charge while you’re not using it. Meaning without any effort at all you get up each morning with a full tank of gas. Instead of driving to a fuel station every week to get fuel.
This last point is praying on people’s ignorance in automatically accepting that EV’s aren’t dissimilar to other vehicles in that they need to go to a station to charge. They don’t, they do it at home.
Some people in these comments have said if we had EV adoption, there would be ques at charging stations a mile long of people waiting hours to charge. Simply not the case. You’d only need to do that if you were on a long distance trip which most people don’t take very often. You’d also be using the super charging network which will charge your car anywhere between 5-40 minutes with the medium time being around 20 minutes. That network is expanding rapidly every year in Australia yet alone the rest of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 doesn’t quite work like that. FCEV’s are actually heavier than battery electrics. The mirai for example is dimensionally similar to the Tesla Model 3 (although slightly smaller). But it weighs as much as half a ton more than the model 3. Because not only do you have to have fuel tanks which have to be triple layered, anti-puncture pressure tanks capable of withstanding at least 32 times the pressures LPG is stored at in their big steel gas bottles, (like for bbq’s). But you also have to store at least twice as much energy in hydrogen.
Hydrogen cars and Battery cars don’t use energy like for like, if you have 100kWh of energy stored in a battery electric, you will be able to use 95 kWh of that 100. If you have 100kWh of stored hydrogen, you will only be able to use 40kWh if that 100.
By reducing the battery size to fit hydrogen tanks which can store more than double the equivalent energy of hydrogen at 700 times atmospheric pressure and adding a fuel cell, you reduce the amount of power which can be supplied to the motor, you also increase the centre of gravity making it handle worse, you reduce safety, reduce storage and cabin space to fit the extra components and hydrogen costs at current 20x more per km. Meaning you also increase the cost of operation of the vehicle.
All that and the only benefits is reducing your charge time by 10 minutes on trips you take maybe once a year or less, and increased your time getting fuel every week by 5 minutes which adds up to 17 hours per year.
Where is the benefit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 in Tesla’s case they use capacitors because they aren’t damaged by rapid discharge meaning they use them for rapid acceleration. And only that.
But using hydrogen makes no sense. Let’s assume you put in the smaller hydrogen system you can, that’s still a large chunk of batteries and space you have to take out for the large and extremely heavy fuel tanks, the exhaust system, the fuel cell itself and lastly the increased coolant system, because instead of needing handle the heat from the motor and the batteries, you now have to handle the heat from the motor, batteries, fuel cell and fuel tanks.
Fuel tanks aren’t flat, vessels holding that kind of pressure are tubular or spherical in nature to avoid stress concerntrations. This raises the centre of gravity. The batteries will also have to be stored above the exhaust system which again, raises the centre of gravity. With less batteries you have a smaller power output. So off the batt you have more weight, less likely performance, worse handling and more expensive running costs all with less storage and cabin space. And now having an extremely explosive gas that can actually leak through solid metal and embrittle and weaken it in the process, you are now driving a bomb on wheels. Which handles worse and brakes slower due to more weight. Meaning less safety.
There is no realm of practicality for introducing hydrogen for domestic passenger vehicles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 batteries and SC is the only combination that makes sense, you add SC they’re light weight and small. They don’t impact any of the characteristics of the car expect for purchase cost, and improved performance.
Hydrogen however, doesn’t offer that. It negatively impacts performance handling and safety. It barely makes up for that inconvenience with range. The Tesla Model 3 performance getting 325 miles to a charge, the mirai only getting 75 miles further to a tank of hydrogen. Except the model 3 is significantly cheaper to run, the mirai as <9s 0-60 whilst the model 3 has 3.2s to 60. The mirai has reduced passenger space and only 1 boot and seats that don’t fold, whilst the model 3 has a boot, a boot inside that where a fuel tank would go, foldable seats and a drunk which more generous passenger space despite the slightly smaller dimensions.
Here are some facts for you to save your research. Hydrogen is made from electricity. You can’t get it without putting in energy, that’s either electricity or straight up burning fossil fuels.
Let’s go with green. You need power from the grid to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is only 70% efficient at best and often is worse. It then has to be compressed and liquified cryogenically. This has a 20% loss on energy as a result. It then has to be trucked to fuel stations, losing another 20%. Then once it’s in the car, fuel cells are only about 60% efficient at best. the electricity provided by the fuel cell then goes into the batteries, the charging is around 98% efficient. Then it’s put through an inverter to generate AC current for the motor which is again 98% efficient before it goes into the electric motor which (if it’s using a Tesla motor) 97% efficient.
So if you supplied 100kWh from the grid to the hydrogen production plant, you would only get 25 kWh of work out of it at the wheels.
Meanwhile you could supply the same power to a BEV from the grid for charging. It goes through an inverter to charge the battery, comes out into another inverter then used in the electric motor. All this gives 80kWh of use from the original 100kWh.
Hydrogen vehicles are also slow not only because they weigh more but because you can’t fit a lot of surface area for the catalytic reaction which produces the electricity from hydrogen, inside the car. Fuel cells have low power output. Only just enough to let the car cruise but not enough the adequately accelerate the car. So they use batteries. Store excess energy in them for when you need to accelerate. That’s why the mirai is slow. The mirai Has a battery rack, there is no car which runs direct from the FC. They don’t produce enough power.
Simple things to google if you want to verify for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 thats because you're not reading what I am trying to tell you. The Mirai already uses batteries. CONGRATULATIONS your wish has already come true. It has batteries, but for all that loss in performance, safety, space, handling, all it managed to do is squeeze in an extra 75 miles.
75 miles, over its closest competitor being the slightly smaller model 3. I am trying to get through to you that this has already happened with FC and the results are poor. For all the increased cost of operation, reduced storage and passenger space, reduced performance, reduced handling and reduced safety, and increased weight you only acheive an extra 75 miles.
And you Cant make that better by adding more batteries than is already there. because then your FC wont be large enough to keep the car going. But if you make the FC larger you have to reduce fuel capacity meaning you wont have as much range as if you were in an BEV. Then the only option is you need to increase the weight even more, get a bigger tank, bigger FC and bigger batteries and put that in where you would have passengers sit or where cargo would go.
the end result is you start getting 2 seater performance cars which dont actually perform as well as the BEV does. So then what is the point?
I"M TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT ITS BEEN DONE IN THE MIRAI. IT HAS BATTERIES AND A FC AND ITS ABYSMAL!
its not a hypothetical. it happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is alot wrong here. Firstly EV's are far far more efficient than even Diesel engines or Hydrogen cars. Whilst they dont store as much energy has ICE cars do with fuel, they are far more efficient, around 80-90% efficient compared to Petrol's 25-30% and Diesel's 35-40%. And time it takes to charge? depends on whats charging it and when. For example a modern V3 super charger and fully charge an EV within 5-15 minutes. But thats not how most people would charge, They usually charge at home since electricity is provided to the home, not just fuel stations. meaning you plug it in when you get have and you wake up to a full tank. 99% of the year that means 0 time spend waiting for a charge and 0 times spent getting fuel which saves the average person 16-17 hours per year of getting fuel. Something a Hydrogen car would suffer from. and as for the range, its not 50%. the average range of a petrol car is around 410 miles, Modern EV's current sit between 250-400 miles with the Long Range model S getting 412 miles.
Then you go on to talk about space of batteries vs hydrogen. well there is something you're forgetting to factor it. weight isn't volume. Whilst hydrogen and fuel weigh alot less than batteries do, they both take up more VOLUME than batteries do. Especially hydrogen practically having something in the order of less than half the Volumetric energy density of batteries. A Tesla Model S can go 412 miles on its batteries and have extra room in the boot and cabin and even room in the front for a front trunk making it extraordinarily spacious for a car of its size. Meanwhile the Toyota Mirai, being a similar size to the Model S carries a lite, 5.6kg of hydrogen, but that takes up almost 150L of fuel tank volume (more fuel tanks than a Ford F250!). it also has to carry an exhaust system, and a fuel cell. This means no front trunk, a boot that so small its almost a full 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris less than half it size, and so little cabin space you cant physically fold the rear seats to extend your already deeply compromised boot space.
So unlike your thoughts on the subject, there is room to put more batteries into an EV if you wanted more than 400 miles of range. But there is NO more room to add more fuel tanks to a Hydrogen car if you want to extend its range. Its maxed out already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleyfarmer627 teslas model 3 starting price in the US before subsidies is only $38k. Below the national average car price. And it is a luxury vehicle. It has a lot of luxury feature but also has more software features than any other car. You can change the steering feel, acceleration, it has keyless AND fobless energy. The only car that automatically locks on departure. The only car with true, free over the air updates, has built in Spotify, Apple Music, Netflix and Disney plus and more, has built in games and can connect wired or Bluetooth controllers. The app functionality is decades ahead of anyone else. Allowing unprecedented control access to information. You can even send directions from your phone to the car so the nav can already be set up before you even get into the car. You can preheat or pre-cool the car, operate the windows, frunk and trunk remotely, you can see the cars live location, speed, and nav route and change it, limit the speed or lock out the car remotely if stolen. You can get it to remotely pick you up on a parking lot. All through the app.
Then you have it’s infamous sentry mode, recording and warning anyone to comes near the car. Built in dash cam, you have the famous dog mode and climate keep which leaves the aircon on after you leave and displays the current temperature and that the aircon is on and your pets owner will be back soon, bright and on the main screen.
I’d say you get alot for less than the average car price in the US even before incentive and subsidies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well the Cheapest Tesla being the model 3 is the direct competitor of the BMW M3, They are both similar is cost. The model 3 has more features, better performace and better handling. The model 3 also doesnt require any servicing and is more than 10x cheaper to run per km and has a higher safety rating that the BMW.
Infact I am a lower middle income earner, just starting out my career in Engineering, so im only just trailing off graduate wages and I purchase my Tesla Model 3 on graduate wages. (it was a big financial stretch). I deemed the cost justified though. here is why;
The model 3 is a very cheap car to run. Infact its so cheap without servicing or fuel that I worked out that with the amount that I drive, after 5 years it would have cost me the same if I had purchased, charged, and serviced my Tesla Model 3 than if I had purchased, fuelled and serviced an entry level Toyota Camry, but after the 5 years I still have something that has better performance and features that a BMW, Audi or entry level Mercedes.
I also justified it because of the massive jump in safety, the model 3 being the second highest scoring car on the AANCAP safety board the year I purchased it. The Tesla Model X being number 1 and the Tesla Model X being 4th. with the Mercedes CLA in third.
They are incredibly cheap to run. more than a year since my purchase and i'm already looking at beating that benchmark with the Toyota Camry before 5 years is up. These cars are also designed (yes, battery and all, dont buy into the blatant lies spread about EV's) to last more than 20-30 years worth of driving. How much do you think I would have saved after 2 decades with my model 3 compared to if I had purchased a toyota Camry or a BMW M3?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MikeHottVOD it does violate the laws of phyiscs. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and entropy always increases and never decreases without the input of external energy.
That means that to get energy out you need to put energy in. Self charging assumes you can create energy from nothing which violates the law of conservation of energy. The second part about entropy, also called the second law of thermodynamics, means that a system can never be more than 100% efficient. Even then, there is an upper limit to efficiency, you'll never truly have something 100% efficient. there will always be losses. So a "self charging car" violates the laws of physics.
as for energy requirements, there isnt really a problem predicted for this. Whilst if everyone overnight took delivery of an EV, we would have a problem. But the worlds energy grid has never failed to increase over time by an average of doubling every 20 years. Think about all the electronics we have today that we didnt in the past. Im stting on a laptop with a separate screen using a digital mouse and keypad, listening to music on a speaker system, connected to my phone, whilst my washing machine, dishwasher, 3D printer are all on, and my aircon is also blasting with several lights in the house on, and a refrigerator running 24/7, meanwhile 2 decades ago, it might have just been the fridge and lights operating and an aircon if you were lucky. maybe a radio.
The point of all that was that at the rate EV's are being adopted, even with optimistic predictions, the grid should have increased enough to support them by the time we get to full market penetration.
Saying the grid cannot support it now, is a very myopic thought to have. it doesnt need to support them now, it is always growing, by the time EV's are fully adopted the grid will be more than capable of handling the power demands.
1
-
@MikeHottVOD so your "self charging car" isn't a "self charging car" but a "refuelling" car. Got it. Except unless you're using fossil fuels, you'll have to use more energy to create the fuel and due to the law of entropy, you'll get less of it out as work. So no.
As for your example with Texas, let me get your logic straight. The power goes out during a natural disaster therefore its EV's fault? not good logic. You see, the power went out in texas during the snow storm not because people turned their heaters on. But because the FUEL FROZE! Texas has more than enough power to supply all the homes and heaters in the state, the problem was that the state had never had an event like that in recorded history, as such, the power grid wasn't designed to withstand artic temperatures. What happened was that the gas lines supplying the power stations froze and fuel stopped flowing to them because they're not insulated or heat traced like ones in colder climates (again, because they've never had to be.) Coal supplies were left outside of the plant instead of having to build an entire facility inside the plant (again, because they never had to.) and they couldnt get it into the burners through all the snow. Train supplying more coal were also stopped by the amount of snow. Switching stations also froze over mitigating the girds ability to load shed.
Power didn't go out in texas because they didn't have the grid capacity, it went out because they weren't built for those climates.
Complaining that EV's shouldn't be adopted because the power went out during the texas snow storm is like saying that EV's shouldn't be adopted because one time there was a hurricane in New Orleans and the power went out for days. its fundamentally flawed logic void of any critical thinking what so ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MikeHottVOD ..... the point of having a battery is that you dont need to have it connected to the grid..... your logic is still flawed. lets run through a scenario
Modern EV's have enough charge to run a daily commute, even a longer than average one, 3-5 times without worrying about charging. If we're looking at the US average daily commute, as much as 25 times before you need to look for a charge. Most EV's are charged from home overnight, so you wake up every morning with what is effectively a full tank of fuel. when the grid goes down, batteries in your car dont.
Now lets look at ICE cars, the fuel tank on the average car is around about the same as modern EV's unless you're looking at larger diesel SUV's and pickups. at the time the power goes out, you have only what ever fuel you have left in the tank since you filled it up last. that could be a full tank or you could be just about to trigger your fuel light. How do you expect to get more fuel WHEN THE POWER TO THE FUEL STATIONS TO RUN THE FUEL PUMPS TO REFUEL YOUR CAR REQUIRE GRID ELECTRICITY!? again, think boy! think! no power, no pumps, no pumps, no fuel, no fuel, no vroom vroom!
again, try thinking things through more!
1
-
@MikeHottVOD Here is the problem with that idea. solar powered cars are fairly gimicky, you have around 2 square meters of a car you can put solar panels, assuming they dont get dirty or damaged which is a BIG assumption. 1 square meter of solar panels will produce 1kw of power. So lets say you leave your car in the sun all day on a summers day and you produce a whopping.... 13kWh of electricity. thats going to get a car like the model 3 (one of the most efficient EV's on the road today), only around 63 miles.
Now there are some fully functional EV's coming out which ARE solar AUGMENTED but to make the most of the solar they're shaped like a giant wing making them both ugly and impractical, they have 2 seats, no boot space, have the weight of a feather, are slow, and.. get this, only have 3 wheels, which if you've ever seen a reliant robin go around a corner too quickly, you might immediately spot the problem with that. and thats not fully on solar either.
the trouble there is that the power you get from the sun over the area of a car, even if you captured all of it, isnt actually alot. and there are some base requirements for diving a car with passengers are freeway speeds in terms of energy requirements. Further to that a solar car would have been completely and utterly useless in say, the Texas snow storm, or really anywhere too far from the equator like areas of Canada, norway and others. For example, in winter, you only get 7 hours of daylight. Assuming you get a sunny day of course (not common in the UK from what I hear), you'd succeed at capturing around 30% of that energy as it goes around (think glancing angles as the sun moves around. You cant point the car at the sun all day) so you'd make 4.2 kWh of electricity, which would get a Model 3, 20 miles.
Not exactly an encouraging range is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
as a quick example, lets do some basic maths here. Firstly lets assume some VERY efficient values and we'll calculate the bare minimum energy requirements, and then we'll compare to the 1.3kW that the sun can provide maximum per square meter on a sunny day, assuming a 100% efficient solar panel that captures every bit of sunlight energy.
Firstly lets work out where we are going. So lets say you want to drive to the top of a small mountain such as Mt Dandenong in Victoria Australia. The trip from the base to the top is around 17.7km and ascends 633m to its peak. Lets also assume its 1 passenger plus luggage so around 120kg. We'll also assume 1T for the car, its systems, seats and safety features (crash frame, airbags, etc) (VERY optimistic). Then lets assume the weight of the battery is only sufficient enough to get us to the top of the mountain, zero waste (impractical but lets do it) with a battery density that of the model 3 also of 260 wh/kg. We will also assume a VERY good drag co-efficient such as for the model 3 of 0.23, we'll also assume a similar size car to the model 3 with a frontal cross sectional area of 2.6m^2, and of course, an average speed up the mountain of around 60km/h.
Now that that is out of the way, If we work out losses due to air resistance, rolling resistance, and the energy required to displace the mass of the occupant, luggage, car and batteries, up 633m of elevation, we can use simultaneous equations to solve for the weight and size of the battery, and the energy required to get to the top of the mountain.
What we get is that, assuming 100% efficiency, and zero braking on the journey, we get 2.66kWh required, meaning around 10.2kg of batteries. But if we add some optimistically low losses, such as 97% efficiency for the motor, 98% for the batteries and 95% for the inverter, we will need 2.96 kWh of electricity.
We also know that at 60km/h it will take around 18 minutes to travel that distance.
We know that in clear sunlight, the maximum amount of energy the lands of a single square meter of earth is 1.3kW's of energy. If we captured every single drop of that sunlight energy, (impossible but lets assume so and lets assume its at noon when that energy concentration is at its peak and not say, late afternoon.)
Over the time it takes to travel up the mountain, 18 minutes, we wold have collected 0.39kwh of energy, or 13% of the energy we require
And that's Impossibly unrealistically optimistic efficiencies
There just isn't the energy for it. yet alone factoring in things like shade from the overhead tree's as you're driving, aircon or cooling systems, internal power in the car for things like radio and instrument panels etc etc etc.
IT CANNOT BE DONE I've been trying to tell you this, there just isn't the energy. face the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donovanh5679 transport a battery once, transport eFuel every single litre you burn every single kilometre. Significant difference.
EV’s last much longer than combustion engines, batteries included. Further to that, EV’s don’t require large engine blocks and transmissions, so all up they only produce approximately 15% more emissions during manufacturing.
As for energy requires from purely green energy, you can do the same for EV’s but let’s examine those energy requirements.
In 2019 the world used 159 billion litres of fuel. Efuel production is only around 55% efficient before it gets to the motor, this means that 159 billion litres of fuel would require 5.4 billion MegaWatt hours to produce, meanwhile the global consumption of electricity in the same period was around 21 billion MegaWatt Hours. (Of which only 14% of it was renewable, or rains 3 billion MegaWatt Hours, far from the 5 billion). So even without it being renewable, you’d have to increase the grid capacity of the entire globe by 25%. A whole 1/4 to add. However if you wanted it green you’d have to increase the worlds green energy capacity by as much as 2.8 times what it is currently globally. almost 3 times more than the worlds current green energy capacity at least
Compare that to the amount of energy required for BEV’s for driving the same distances. You’d only have to increase global energy consumption by 4%. And if we went the green energy route, from from increasing the worlds green energy by 280% you’d only need 30% increase.
So ultimate energy efficiency is far from accurate. The investment in emissions even to create the required grid capacity, green or not, is enormous compared to doing the same for battery electrics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually, 2 things, firstly, whilst you endlessly refuel a ICE, you cannot endlessly run one. Do not forget you need to service it every 10k miles or so. Replacing parts, all of which have an environmental impact and replacing oils and other fluids.
Secondly, Modern EV batteries have a lifespan roughly double that of a standard combustion engine. 8 years in infact, the industry standard warranty period on the batteries alone. Yet alone their lifespan. If you batteries dies at 7 years and 364 days, guess what, you get a free new battery. But in the meantime, whilst enjoying double the lifespan of a combustion engine, you also have NONE of the upkeep, no spark plugs, timing belts, engine oil, oil filters, fuel filters, fuel pumps, transmission oil, etc etc etc. and all the emissoins that go with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abstractexchange5057 actually no. When I say it takes alot of energy to create hydrogen. Which it does, I dont mean the energy converted to chemical potential energy. I mean the energy wasted. If you were to supply 100kWh to an electrolysis process, and then compress that hydrogen before passing it through a fuel cell, you would only get 33kWh out of the fuel cell. The rest of the energy will be wasted However supply 100kWh to a battery and you will be able to get 92 kWh of electricity out of it. Thats what I mean by alot of energy.
And whilst hydrogen is gravimetrically dense in terms of kWh/kg (around 33kWh per kg) It is not very Volumetrically dense in kWh/L or kWh/gal. Even compressed to 700 bar hydrogen only has a volumetric energy density of 1.4kWh/L (5.3 kWh/gal) Meaning for vehicles like the Toyota Mirai for example, whilst they only carry 5.6kg of hydrogen on board, that takes up a whopping 3 fuel tanks totally 141L of fuel tank capacity (37 gallons).
Thats more fuel tank storage in a small mid-sized sedan than you'd get in a Ford F150 twice its size. And for only 400 miles of range. This mean the Mirai has to sacrifice space, they have VERY little cabin space, the boot in the Mirai is so small its 100L less than a Toytoa Yaris which is a whole 2 classes smaller than the Mirai, and even then it doesnt have enough space to fold the rear seats down to try to extend the boot space.
Meanwhile the similarly sized Tesla Model 3 gets only 75 miles less range, has a massive trunk (almost class leading) with another trunk in the front engine bay, and has class leading cabin space. It is also significantly faster than the Mirai, last longer than the Mirai in terms of total lifespan, and costs around 20x less per mile to operate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@exothermal.sprocket I mean hell, Scotty thinks that hydrogen cars are the future, based on nothing but his imagination, if you look at the actual details hydrogens cars have a shorter life than BEV’s are actually as heavy if not heavier, have way less boot space and cabin space, are slower, less convenient, less safe, less green and don’t actually get much further than a BEV and in some cases, not even as far. But he wouldn’t know that, he’s never worked on, owned or really even taken a cursory look at hydrogen cars, yet he published a whole video spouting bullshit that they’re the future and are “Tesla killers”. If that doesn’t highlight my point I don’t know what does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lee Jon This is actually incorrect. Whilst hydrogen is energy dense, in terms of kWh/kg, it is not energy dense in kWh/L. In-fact in practical applications, hydrogen is well and truly less than half the volumetric energy density of batteries. Lets look at two prototype vehicles currently undergoing road trials. The Hydrogen fuel cell semi, the Hyundai Xcient, and the Tesla Semi.
The Hyundai Xcient holds almost twice as much fuel in terms of capacity, than a standard diesel semi does, even then it can only get 400 miles of range fully loaded. It has to carry a 75 kWh battery pack (the same size a long range Tesla Model 3) so it can adequately accelerate. Its power plant consists of 2 hydrogen fuel cells as well. To fit all this in, you take up all of your room. In fact the rear part of the semi extends almost the entire length of the first trailer giving it a horrendous turning circle, it also is tall vertically reducing the vertical room for the first trailer meaning it has to have specially made first trailers before picking up conventional trailer.
Another issue is that the Xcient cant actually get to freeway speeds, even unloaded. It does not have enough power. (as fuel cells are inherently low power output). It can only get to 85km/h maximum, (53 mph). All ontop of that is the fact that the fuel cells for the Xcient are only rated to last around 100,000 miles, and the fuel tanks will only last 10 years. The trucks are extremely short lived.
By comparison lets look at the Tesla Semi currently undergoing road trials with selected customers. Fully loaded the Semi can get further than 500 miles. At super chargers it can charge up fully in under 30 minutes and can top up at destinations. it can reach freeway speeds fully loaded, going uphill, faster than most cars. It costs significantly less in fuel than a hydrogen truck, it lifespan is rated at 1,500 cycles for the battery (lab results confirmed through real world results from the rest of the Tesla fleet). meaning it would have a lifespan of around 750,000 miles. It has no issues with turning circles or vertical heights.
But most people still bring up that they want to save the 30 minutes to recharge at the extensive super charging infrastructure and would prefer to fill up their hydrogen trucks in 5 minutes from any of the non-existent hydrogen fuel stations. To that there is a small hickup.
Most countries such as the EU, USA, Australia, Canada, UK, etc etc etc have laws on how long a truck driver is allowed to drive per day. For example in the US truck drivers are not allowed to drive more than 11 hours per day. And in between their 5th and 8th hour of driving they must take a minimum of 30 minutes break. The Tesla Semi has enough range for around 9 hours of driving. Meaning you can more than comfortably make it to your 30 minute break by pulling over at a super charger, you will get a full charge within that 30 minutes, and be on your way for the rest of your 11 hour drive that remains (4-6 hours driving) before you have to pull over for the day, possibly at a destination charger which would charge your truck all the way up overnight or at a super charger to plug in right before you leave again. Meaning needing to charge up wastes no time at all for truck drivers.
This means the tesla can go freeway speeds spending less time transporting cargo which makes it cheaper in man hours for freight, it costs 20x less per mile for fuel compared to the Xcient, which saves money, you get more vertical height in your first trailer compared to the Xcient which means more cargo which is more money and the Tesla Semi will last more than 7 times longer than the Xcient which again, saves more money. It seems like there is a clear winner here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you're talking about a crystal radio... unfortunately, you can only convert radio wave energy impacting the antenna back to electrical energy. As the radios waves spread out it does so spherically, the same amount of energy has to be averaged over an ever increasing spherical surface area, making the energy logarithmically smaller with distance. I.e. at double the distance you have 10x less energy per m2. And considering that your antenna only picks up less than 0.1m2 of radio waves, thats not alot of energy to play with.
The Fuel cell isnt the part that costs alot of money. Its the fuel. Hydrogen doesnt occur naturally on earth. Not in its pure state. Therefore you have to MAKE hydrogen from other substances containing it which requires an enormous amount of energy to extract. It is also notoriously difficult to contain because it not only takes up a huge amount of volume. but it also can leak through solid metal because hydrogen atoms are so small. You cant feed it entirely off renewables because of the enormous energy demands required to make hydrogen.
Lastly, a combustion engine is only around 20% efficient. Whilst a fuel cell is 60% efficient. So you would need more fuel to go just as far. ALOT more fuel. Which, as previously discussed. is the expensive part. making a combustion hydrogen engine much more expensive to own and operate.
For example, a Toyota Mirai carries as much fuel as it can fit, even to the detriment of boot space and cabin space without even enough boot space to hold a spare tire (not even a space saver). With the fuel cell at 60% efficient, the hydrogen car, with all that fuel on board. can only go 400 miles. A combustion hydrogen car packed to the brim with fuel, just like the mirai, would only be able to go 133 miles. for the same extremely expensive price of fuel that takes the fuel cell 400.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Probably not there either. Many of the reasons that make hydrogen bad domestics cars are exacerbated at the commercial transport level. Additionally there are 3 factors why they aren’t good for taxis either.
1.) cost
2.) volume restrictions and;
3.) lifespan.
Let’s start at 1.) cost: hydrogens costs ALOT to buy. Even best case scenario it costs well over 5 times more per mile than a similar sized battery car would cost whilst currently it’s over 20x more. For a taxi, this is bad. The less they spend on fuel, the better their income. When it comes down to crunching numbers, it’s still more worthwhile for them to charge at a super charger for 10-15 minutes 2-3 times per day than it is to have a hydrogen car that can refuel faster but costs significantly more to do so. Even if the hydrogen network is complete and comprehensive.
2.) volume restrictions: hydrogen takes up ALOT of volume. The mirai for example is a model S, Toyota Camry sized car, but it’s boot space is almost a full 100L less than that of a Toyota Yaris. It’s so small it can’t physically fit a spare tire in it. Not even a cheap space saver. The back seats are also so cramped that it’s physically impossible to fold the rear seats even if you wanted to extend the boot. Which is bad to say the least. The rear passengers actually get their own cut out groove in the ceiling to give the minimum legally required headroom.
What this means is that for cost per mile and space for passengers and luggage, it’s better for a taxi drive to have a Yaris than a large hydrogen sedan. Batteries on the other hand have an abundance of space. With larger than average boots, a front boot to add, and famously generous cabin space making them far more ideal for passenger transport and luggage transport.
3.) lifespan: hydrogen cars have notoriously short lifespans. The fuel cells are only rated to last around 150,000 miles whilst hydrogen cars come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their lifespan to only around 10 years or so. Meanwhile, contrary to popular belief, modern EV batteries are designed to last double the average lifespan of a combust engine yet alone a hydrogen car. So for a taxi driver, in terms of investment cost per average mile as well as depreciation, EV’s are a far better choice for this.
If you want more details on why they’d be bad for freight, I’d be happy to explain further.
1
-
@akashnepak504 actually I’m not. Whilst batteries do take up a lot of space. They don’t have a massive engine or transmission. They are also entirely contained in the bed of a chassis. Freeing up the rest of the car. Hydrogen on the other hand needs to be stored in edgeless high pressure tanks with 1inch thick walls. Ever put a circle into a square or rectangular frame? Notice the wasted space at the corners? With tank thickness included this gives a volumetric density less than half that of batteries. Then you also have to include an engine sized fuel cell in the front and a hybrid sized lithium battery. All of which takes up more volume again. Even just the fuel, the Mirai requires almost 150L of fuel tank volume to go its 400 miles. (5.6kg of hydrogen).
This bears out in practice too. Everything I said about space is true for the mirai. Which is dimensionally similar to the Model S. The mirai goes 400 miles to a tank whilst the model S goes 412 miles. Even with the slightly longer range, unlike the mirai, it has a front boot, a massive rear boot (one of the largest in its class) and massive amounts of cabin space (again, one of the largest in its class). It doesn’t take a genius to work out that comparison for two cars with almost identical dimensions.
As for battery life, old (2018-2021) Tesla batteries with their on board BMS, have a cycle life of around 1,500 cycles, to 80% health (after 1,500 cycles you’ll have 80% of your range left). For a model S with a range of 412 miles, that’s a lifespan to 80% health of 618,000 miles. With 2022 models receiving the new 4680 batteries with a lifespan of 4,000 cycles.
How is this born out in real life? Quite accurately as it turns out. Model 3’S in the road today with smaller batteries than the model S, after 100,000 miles of driving, have been averaging less than 1% degradation as independently verified by multiple studies and organisation’s. So yes, modern EV batteries do last that long. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Do not. They even have an expiration date on them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akashnepak504 electrolizers use more energy than charging a battery. Because it’s an extra step. Hydrogen fuel cells provide electricity which charges a lithium battery which turns the electric motor. This is due to the lower power output and slow response times of the fuel cell. So charging, discharging and motor losses are common to both BEV’s and hydrogen, meanwhile fuel cells in labs achieve 60% efficiency, however on road they achieve 40% efficiency as they’re not being fed pure dry oxygen.
Electrolysing water also has losses because you need energy to overcome the chemical bonds of water which hold the hydrogen to the oxygen. Those chemical bonds can’t just be broken without expending any energy, that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. So you will ALWAYS have energy loss through electrolysis. You also have to compress and transport the hydrogen.
In total you have the electrolysis losses,
compression losses,
Transport losses
And fuel cell losses,
ALL added to the same losses a BEV faces meaning you will ALWAYS need far more energy per miles worth of hydrogen then charging a battery meaning they will ALWAYS be more expensive to operate, even ignoring the reselling chain from producer to distributor to customer with all parties wanting a profit mark up. Which is something battery electrics don’t have.
Face it, hydrogen cars are just bad cars. They’re not as green, not as efficient, not as practical (volume), more expensive, have shorter lifespans, worse performance and worse safety than BEV’s. That’s what happens when You add so many extra steps to the process that you don’t need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually per mile hydrogen requires around 3-4 time the same energy from the grid to produce than if you had just put that electricity into a BEV. Meaning hydrogen would have the greater stress on the grid. Additionally currently hydrogen fuel tanks are only rated to last 10 years from manufacture. With an expiration date printed on the fuel cap, and the average lifespan currently of a fuel cell stack is around 100,000 miles, whilst BEV batteries have a life rated to around 400,000 to 500,000 miles depending on the battery size. Which represents around 30-40 years of driving for the average person. Hydrogen however is 10 years or 100,000 miles, which ever comes first, so for every BEV lifespan you have to dispose and produce 3-5 hydrogen cars.
Additionally hydrogen cars are more expensive to operate as they require a lot more energy, they’re slower thanks to fuel cell limitations, and hydrogen whilst very light, takes up alot of space, which hydrogen cars having less cabin and boot space than smart cars half their size. All for only 20% more range than their BEV counterparts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually the technology is already there. We are already seeing older generation EV’s outlast their combustion counterparts with no mandatory servicing outside of tires. And newer model EV’s are designed to last well over 500,000 miles, batteries included. So construction quality is good, so is their lifetime Tesla’s finish quality when initially ramping up to mass production was poor, with paint issues and panel gaps, hardly major mechanical issues, and something every automaker on the planet went through when stepping into those kind of production numbers for the first time.
Super charging times are down to 5-15 minutes, hardly slow, and most people charge their EV’s at home when they’re not using the car. Statistically speaking that saves the average commuter 17 hours a year not having to find and get fuel.
Further to that Tesla’s shortest range vehicle has a 400km range, very few if anyone at all has a daily commute more than that distance.
EV’s also have better performance and safety than combustion cars, they also cost 10x less to run per km, and features native to having a large battery make the cars far more convenient and practical. For example forgot where you parked? You can see your car on a map in live time, honk the horn or flash the lights from anywhere in the world. Forgot to wind up your windows, they’ll send you a notification telling you and it’s as simple as a button on your phone from anywhere in the world to wind them up.
Went away for a trip and left it on the driveway blocking in your wife’s car? From anywhere in the world you can unlock the car and give remote access to drive it.
Parking next to a dodgey car or in a dodgey area? High definition cameras record around the car constantly as a huge deterrent to vandalism and also means, unlike any other car in the market, you can chase up people responsible for door dings on your car and go through their insurance without raising your premiums or playing an excess. If you want to leave your dog in the car you can leave the aircon on indefinitely or turn it on or off to heat up or cool down the car before you even get in it. Seat heaters included.
The technology is already there. Don’t be fooled.
1
-
@gazg1546 as for the cost. really. you think EV's are more expensive than fuel... REALLY?! laughable idea but no. Average price of Electricity in Melbourne is around 25c/kWh. The model 3 uses 0.13 kWh/km, that means it costs 3c per km of travel. The average fuel price in Melbourne is $1.42/L, for a car that does a conservative 7L/100km, it costs 10c per km. which is to say, a fair bit more expensive than eletricity.
but it gets worse, that's not apples to apples. The models 3's closest competitor in price, features and performance is the BMW M3, which has a combined fuel consumption of 11.5L/100km. Which puts fuel at 16c per km.
but wait theres more there is nothing to service on EV's. No oil filter, no engine oil or transmission oil, no fuel pumps or spark plugs and no timing belts. that means that you're saving on average around 4c per km. which means that your 16c per km, inclusive of regular maintenance is 20c per km.
so no. not more expensive. They last longer than a standard combustion cars starting at a lifetime (to 70% of original capacity) of nearly 500,000 miles (800,000km). They also perform better having a drastically lower centre of gravity, and better acceleration and response without sacrificing practicality and they are also safer than combustion cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 well firstly, BEV’s don’t catch fire. Statistically speaking BEV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. People just think they’re fire hazards because EV car fires sells. So the only car fires reported in the news are EV’s. I had a use across the street from me spontaneously combust at a set of traffic lights. 2 people died. Didn’t even make the local paper yet alone the news anywhere else. 2 weeks later an EV combusted after hitting a concrete pole at 125km/h but the flames spread so slowly that all the occupants got out of the car and everyone survived. That made the news despite it being in an entirely different country.
As for the fuel tanks, they are scrapped at that point. Because of 2 reasons. The extreme pressure cycling causing fatigue stress and hydrogens unfortunately ability of embrittlement of most materials it comes into contact with, making them weaker.
And it’s not just the tanks, it’s the fuel cell as well which has an extraordinary short life compared to batteries. Ironically the Mirais lithium batteries are the longest living part of the mirais powertrain.
The mirai doesn’t actually get that much more range. The mirai is a mid-sized sedan. So is the Tesla model 3. The model 3 gets 325 miles of range, the mirai gets 400. Only 75 miles less.
And the mirai is doing something called “hyper milling” and sorry that’s not reflective of normal driving. They have released no detail about the average speed of the Californian 1,300km run but did accidentally give away just enough information at their France 1,000 km event. Turns out to make that distance it has to average 45km/h (28mph) the entire time. Using the same technique with the a Tesla of similar range (model S, 400 mile range) it got 1,128km. So there is nothing groundbreaking about that.
As for fueling, assuming you can find somewhere to fuel and that the fuel station you go to has enough hydrogen (another problem) unless you’re on a long trip. You’re wasting time.
That’s because EV’s charge from home. Whilst you’re not using it. Wasting no time. Meanwhile people who top up fuel once per week at fuel stations waste 16-17 hours per year doing so.
And as for the tire particulates because of weight? Check again. Model 3 is between 1,600kg and 1,840kg. The mirai of the same size class? Over 1,900kg. Sorry but the mirai weighs more. Blame the explosiveness of hydrogen for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 gah, where to start. Again i'd like to direct your attention to the fact the hydrogen cars do not last nearly as long as battery cars do. Even without the fuel tank, which is a high pressure tank. If you dont understand of cyclic fatigue stress is in pressure tanks I would advise you to google it. But even without that, the fuel cell itself is incredibly short lived.
Id also like to direct your attention to the VOLUMETRIC ENERGY DENSITY You cant physically put more fuel into a hydrogen car. It takes up too much space. Hydrogen cars are already compromised in that point. Having less boot and cabin space than similar sized cars. Making them VERY impractical.
It also means you cant fit in more fuel to go any significant distance further than a fuel cell car.
My point with the hypermiling was that it was done as a stunt. it does not represent normal driving. Even during the city portion they limited their speed, acceleration, deceleration and followed the peak hour traffic around the city in loops. Also worth considering that both machines use electric motors and pass their electricity through lithium batteries. What kind of magic do you think a fuel cell brings to the table to make it go further from a similar rated range? you should have realised by now that the mirai isnt the only car that becomes MORE EFFICIENCT when you're going slower. like in peak hour traffic. City driving saves as much energy for a battery car as it does for a fuel cell car. to think otherwise is naive and idiotic.
Sure the hyperion does 0-60 in 2.2 seconds but look at what it loses. It is a 2 seat, 2 door NO BOOT sports car. and the price tag is estimated at several million. The Tesla Model S Plaid has a faster 0-60 than the hyperion and is a fully functional large luxury sedan with 4 doors and TWO boots. The two arent even in the same ball park. Hydrogen has to make sacrifices where batteries dont.
as for charging. Super charging on the only takes between 10-20 minutes. Not hours. Further to that, on average, people only drive further than 200-400 miles per day around once or twice per year so 20 minutes multiplied by 2-3 is 40 minutes to 1 hour, opposed to 16-17 hours the average person spends chasing fuel stations.
also the mirai is only about 11 inches longer in the rear than the model 3. but has exceptionally lower boot and cabin space and also weighs more. Seems like a pretty costly weight impact for 11 inches dont you think?
The reason hydrogen weighs more is because the cars have to use the chassis to protect the fuel tanks. They reinforce the chassis to divert crash energy around the tanks. Whilst punctures are easily dealt with by the tanks design, tearing one open like a paper bag presents a uniquely terrifying problem. Hence they're protected by extra steel.
Oh, also whilst the cost of a fuel tank environmentally isnt that much, fuel cells are, using platinum which is more toxic than anything contained in a battery. Additionally once the fuel cell and fuel system are at end of life, it would cost more to replace them than it would to just buy a new car. Meaning that while yes, batteries are not that environmentally friendly, they're more friendly than manufacturing and disposing of 2-3 entirely new cars for every one battery life.
Also, FYI, lithium batteries are unrecyclable. They're around 95% recyclable. Perhaps try google. I hear it helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 they’re just not a good concept for cars. They’re being pushed because it’s the fossil fuel industries get out of jail free card. Let me explain. If batteries take over, not only will fossil fuels be phased out entirely but so will fuel stations. The ultimate threat to the fossil fuel industry which has enjoyed a very lucrative partnership with the automotive industry.
Hydrogen is their out. Hydrogen is expensive, twice the price per mile than petrol. 3 times the price of its green hydrogen. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is with fossil fuels (which are hydro-carbons). Meaning fossil fuel industry can still supply the automotive industry. Meanwhile if that goes up, then they also know the only place you refuel hydrogen is at fuel stations. Fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on fuel stations.
That’s why hydrogen is pushed so hard. There are endless lies about EV’s circulating. They’re catch fire a lot, the batteries only last a few years, they’re not green because they run on coal, you’ll have to wait hours for a charge, energy grid can’t handle EV’s, BEV’s are heavier than any other cars on the road. All very blatant lies about EV’s.
But hydrogen is constantly pushed as the saviour. Hydrogens the future, hydrogen is green, hydrogen can get much further than EV’s hydrogen is lighter than other cars. Again lies. Hydrogen is significantly less green than BEV’s and they don’t get much further if at all than BEV’s and they are in any significant way lighter than other cars inclusive of BEV’s.
They ignore all of hydrogens flaws such as low lifespan, low power, reduced room and practicality, reduced safety, increased costs. I bet you didn’t know hydrogen cars had a expiration date printed on them until I told you.
Hydrogen has received the lions share of funding for R&D. He’ll Switzerland is paying g Hyundai to trial their hydrogen trucks in Switzerland. Nobody is paying Tesla to trial their trucks. Nobody is giving Tesla $15,000 of free fuel, nobody is subsidising BEV’s to the point where you can buy a $60,000 BEV for only $18,000 and still get another $15,000 worth of free fuel.
And BEV’s have only been available to consumers for 2-4 years longer than Hydrogen cars. That’s less time than it takes to even collect useable road data from the BEV’s.
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 The performance of electric motor is dependant on the power that can be supplied to it. Fuels cells are notoriously low power and the smaller your battery is, the lower your power available is. Due to space restrictions hydrogen cannot have large batteries. The Mirai already uses a 1.6kWh Battery and still only gets 0-60 in 9.1 seconds. Either you need to allow alot more space for a larger fuel cell or alot more space for a larger battery. There is space for niether.
Its actually 32% more boot space. Not 20%. Which for contexted would be like taking an entire 3rd of the boot out of the Model 3. a Third. Not to mention that without the ability to fold the seats, aside from small lugage and grocers, you forget about trying to pack anything else in there. The model 3 can fold the seats down if you want to pack things like snowboards, ikea furniture, tripods, bikes, etc etc.
Once again, Im referring to realistic ranges. Both the france and california hypermiling event for the Mirai was done by Toyota as advertisements. They had teams set up, scores of people with the extress purpose of maxing out hypermiling. The only hypermiling records produced for Tesla's have been from owners arbitrarily seeing how far they can push their range. Not company sponsored events. In either case, on road use shows no practical difference between hydrogen and BEV's for range.
I'm not worried about the fuel tanks design. Please read what i'm writing. The reason Hydrogen cars weigh as much and often more than BEV's is because of the extra steel used to stiffen the chassis to protect the fuel tanks. Do you know what a downside of a stiffer chassis is? reduced crumple zone and a reduced crumple zone means lower survivability which means its not as safe and to be clear, I mean not as safe compared to a BEV. I readily accept hydrogen is safter than ICE at current.
There are Tesla Semi's undergoing road trails at the moment. Similarly there are Hydrogen semi's undergoing road trials as well. Heres the breakdown for you.
1.) Tesla Semi is exceeding its 500 mile range fully loaded. Hydrogen semi gets 400 miles to a full tanks.
2.) The Tesla Semi does have a 3T battery but it also doesnt have a diesel engine and transmission. So it has very little to no detriment in carrying capacity however it is heavier than the hydrogen truck.
3.) The Hydrorgen Semi still has a 75 kWh lithium battery (same size as the Tesla model 3 long range battery). 2 large 95kWh fuel cells and almost double the amount of fuel a diesel semi carries in Litres. The Tesla has a 1,000 kWh battery which we know takes up significantly less space than the hydrogen. This results in better turning circles and doesnt need custom built first trailer like the hydrodgen does (reduced verticle space. They took that for hydrogen storage.)
4.) Hyundai state that their fuel cells in those trucks are only rated to last 100,000 miles. Whilst the Tesla Semi, going off current battery cycle life, would last 750,000 miles, but Tesla are saying it will be using their new 4250 batteries which would give it lifespan of 2 million miles.
5.) The hydrogen truck cannot reach freeway speeds even when unloaded with its maximum speed being 85km/h or 52 mph. Meanwhile the tesla can reach freeways speeds crazy fast, fully loaded, up steep slopes.
6.) to top that all off hydrogen will cost trucking companies around 20x - 30x more money per mile than the Tesla Semi will.
So I dont think Tesla is the ones going to be looking stupid here with the semi. I also think its very readily going to happen. and IS happening.
Tesla's are already used all over the place by police, taxi companies and businessmen and salesmen. Sorry to say. Hell even police in Austrlia have Tesla's for their highway patrol cars. (not all, some of them are Tesla's). and many serciruty companies have their patrol cars as the Kona Electric.
In your response to my remark about the $15K fuel incentive, do you somehow think that Hydrogen also doesnt get environmental credits? So as far as environmal credits and subsidies, Hydrogen gets everything BEV"s do, but they also get additoinal subsidies over BEV's as well as $15 fuel subsidie. And they still cant compete. Thats because Hydorgen cars are substatially lacking compared to Battery Electrics.
Yes, EV's are an easier technology to make work for the automotive industry. That should be very telling. If you have to make so many sacrifices and accept so many drawbacks to shoehorn fuel cells into cars, that should tell you something. that it isnt suited for cars.
"its finally taking off" - What rock are you living under, last year there were 3 hydrogen models you can buy. This year there are 2. Toyota has had just the 1 hydrogen model available for sale since 2014. Meanwhile this year Toyota announced 30 something new Battery Electric models to hit the market in 2022. "it's finally taking off" what are you taking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 “so what” volumetric entry density matters. If you had a bucket that can carry 40kg, and hold 40L of volume. You will never bake able to “scale” hydrogen to 40kg inside a 40L bucket. A car has a finite volume. Just because it’s light doesn’t mean it’s scalable. Doesn’t mean it’s practical. You can only ever fit so much in before you have to start making tough choices. Do I want more range? Or do I want more boot space or cabin space? Do I want more boot space or cabin space or do I want more performance? Like the Nexo or the Xcient, they had to make sacrifices to fit 400 miles of fuel. Batteries don’t have that problem. The model X and the Tesla semi having much higher ranges with without sacrificing performance or practicality.
I’m not doubting that there are applications that hydrogen would suit better such as places that don’t have an energy grid. But they make up the minority. Not the majority. The majority of applications and places, BEV’s offer far better value for money.
And “batteries won’t work in trucks, it’s a myth” how many times do I have to tell you before you accept reality, the Tesla semi is on the road today. Just like the Hyundai Xcient semi is on the road today. And yet, on road trials but real freight companies is. A multitude of environments and using I every weather condition, shows that the Tesla Semi is better in every metric. Has better volume, as much payload weight, much better range, much better lifespan and significantly cheaper to operate.
These are hypotheticals. These aren’t “myths” these are on the roads right now. You can find YouTube videos of people coming across them. You need to accept reality.
1
-
1
-
@graczmisiek4131 in what way are they not viable for mass production? Something you've continually failed to answer. All you say is "they wont work" but they do work.
as for particulate emissoins. You seem to think Hydrogen doesnt emit particulate emissoins? Need I remind you that hydrogen cars weigh around the same as BEV's? Meaning similar particulate emissions. Further to that because hydrogen car batteries are so small and they are required for the fuel cell, that they cannot utiilize as much regenerative braking meaning they actually put out MORE particulate emissions than BEV's do.
And whilst they do take up some air, its nothing compared to the pollution they cause by the create of every miles worth of hydrogen.
As for BEV's their footprint is much less. thats because whilst they do produce alot more emissions to create a battery, their overall footprint over their life time is less. Because a battery will outlive 2-3 hydrogen cars. and a battery itself does not produce more emssions than it does to manufacture an entire car and then dispose of it multiple times.
ontop of that hydrogen request at the minimum 3-4 times as much electricity from the same grid to operate per mile. PLUS needing to transport the fuel on the back of diesel trucks. So they're polluting at LEAST 3-4 times as much per mile than a BEV does over its operational life which again, makes them less friendly than BEV's.
Sorry but just because one component is emissions heavy to produce once off, does not mean that the whole car over its entire lifespan is less green. Perhaps try looking at the big picture.
The Xcient fuel cell truck carries around 32kg of fuel. Which requires 850L of fuel tank storage But thats for 400 miles. To get the same range as the Tesla Semi, you'd have to add another 210L of fuel tanks ontop of that bringing it to 1,060L of fuel tanks (not 500L).
It also requires 75 kWh of batteries, which takes up 53L of space. It then carries not 1 but 2 95 kW fuel cells. Typical volumetric requirements of a fuel cell today is around 2.5 kW/L which requires 38L of space each or 76L combined. SO in total the power train for the Xcient will be at best 980L vs a Tesla Semi's 1,000 kWh battery pack which will take up 710L. But if we want the same range as the Tesla to make things fair, the Xcient would require a total of 1,190L.
Thats not even getting into the practical wasted space of the fuel tanks (imagine the wasted space when you put a circle inside a square for example.) which means you have to waste even MORE volume than your 980L.
The take away from that is that, is that you cant keep scaling before you need to make things bigger. You can only just fit the 1.6kWh battery pack into the Mirari. You cant even fit enough fuel cells into the Xcient truck to reach freeway speeds. its not scalable just because the fuel is light weight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benjaminjoseph3392 whilst BEV’s have around 15% more emissions and environmental impacts than a ICE car of the same size, trim and role. (Would be more of it needed a fuel system, engine, transmission, etc.) that equates to approximately 1 ton of emissions more than the its ICE equivalent. However over its operational life, it will emit approximately 30-40 tons LESS than its ice equivalent. And their end of life impacts are roughly equivalent. And that a well to wheels analysis. From the source of fuel for power plants (assumed coal, the gap is more drastic with a mixed grid). Likewise it also follows extraction of crude oil, transport to and processing thru fuel refineries, and ultimately transported again to fuel stations.
And that’s even with the assumption both vehicles have the same lifespan. In reality modern EV’s should see about double the useable lifespan (if not more) of either their FCEV and ICE counterparts. With drastically less servicing than either. Meaning you can safely double those results as well.
As for FCEV competitively, they are terribly inefficient. You have to utilise 9x more electricity from the same grid that charges a BEV per kilometre for hydrogen on a best case scenario assuming technology efficiencies at current only hypothetically achievable.
They also last about as long as ICE cars and half as long as BEV’s. Meaning for every one BEV you need to make use and dispose of 2 FCEV’s or ICE’s.
That is why many people think FCEV’s are mind bogglingly stupid. But that’s also not true. It’s only stupid for domestic vehicles. For long distance freight, FCEV’s offer better range and refueling times. Albeit with less performance and safety. But in long distant freight, battery cannot compete. But for domestic use, you’d be a fool to chase FCEV’s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except there are on-road trial version driving around today. all reports from companies using these trial trucks is that it exceeds almost every one of the specs initially stated by Tesla such as the 500 miles range for example. It also saves companies as much as $100,000 per year, per truck to operate compared to a diesel. And lastly, Nikola was trying to create a Hydrogen Fuel Cell truck whilst Tesla is going for Battery Electric. In case you don't know, Hydrogen Fuel Cell trucks ARE battery electric trucks, they've just taken some of the batteries out and sacrificed a lot of space, performance, range, lifespan, to unnecessarily add a fuel cell and fuel tanks so that the truck can run on one of the most expensive fuels in the automotive industry.... not a good concept from the start. Fuel cells use hydrogen to power a fuel cell which creates electricity to charge a large lithium battery on board which then powers and electric motor. The Hyundai Hydrogen Semi, has a 75kWh Lithium battery which is the same size as the battery in a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. For that the truck has a lifespan of only 150,000 miles, cant reach even freeway speeds, even unloaded, and only has a range of 400 miles compared to Tesla's 500 miles, at shocking speeds for a semi, with a lifespan of over 750,000 miles. So you can start to see the difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenknudsen7902 why would it be expensive? solar requires no fuel, barely any maintenance costs, no operational crew, why do people think solar power is expensive? additionally, I dont care if we're talking net zero or not. If we're talking about a grid, we can assume the energy sources for the grid are identical for either hydrogen or EV. why we ant to go to a place of special pleading that the grid would somehow be different I dont know.
In terms of fleet operation hydrogen is non-sensicle. it cannot get as far a batteries do, due to the immense volume required to store hydrogen. (it might be light weight but it takes up ALOT of space). it has a remarkably low power output meaning the trucks are slower, infact most hydrogen semi's on the road today cant even reach freeway speeds even unloaded. and they last around 1/3rd the lifespan of a modern BEV all whilst using a fuel which costs around 20x per mile.
So not only will your transit times increase, your stops would have to increase and your initial trailer capacity reduced, but you're getting something that isnt going to last as long wasting capital costs, as well as costing 20x more to run per mile. Why would anyone want a fleet vehicle like that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vivekvishal3472 also, no, hydrogen won’t win. At least not in domestic vehicles market. Hydrogen is significantly more expensive to operate. Has significantly worse performance, has significantly less safety, has worse handling and worse overall cabin and storage space for similar sized vehicles compared to a BEV.
Why would you pay more money to run a slower, less safe, worse handling, less practical car? And don’t say extra range. The mirai , compared to a similarly sized Model 3, has significantly less storage space and so much less cabin space there isn’t room for the rear seats to fold down, and do you know what you get in range for adding 6 more seconds to your 0-60, worse handling, worse safety and less space? 75 miles that’s right, the mirai only gets 75 more miles to a tank than the model 3 does to a charge.
Hydrogen isn’t the winner here. Sorry bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WranglermanLevi I doubt you’d regularly per week travel 8 hours to and from Utah. 8 hours freeway driving, but since I suspect you’re not going from and to someone on an exit ramp it would be more like 9 or 10 hours of driving. So there and back in a day or even over 2 days seems unreasonable. Since you’d spend an entire work day driving each way. You’d spend one day going there just to spend the next day going back?
EV’s aren’t for everyone but I drive about 150 miles as a daily commute to my current work site. It does fine for me. As for charging station availability, I know EA has a bad rep, but examples of doing it right are Tesla super chargers. Which are usually always up and running. They communicate to the cars so you can see how many are available, how many people are expected to arrive there by the time you get there and if any of them are out of order. It also automatically routes you to available chargers.
As for the time for supercharging. On V3’s it takes 5-10 minutes. Not very long at all. And as for traffic around them. The only people using them are people who are doing road trips. As most people will charge from home where it’s cheaper and more convenient.
As for autonomy, you can charge your car from your own solar panels, or generator. Even from a portable generator, EV’s will consumer half the amount of fuel per mile compared to ICE vehicles. And yes, only 1/3rd of the US grid is emissions free, even on a coal only grid they have a smaller emissions impact that an ICE.
As for battery replacement. The batteries are warrantied for 8 years or more. And are designed to last 300,000-500,000 miles to 20% degradation. I.e. you have 80% of your original range remaining.
Just wanted to clarify those points. I understand they’re not for everyone. If you only have on-street parking, or you need to tow long distances every day for work (btw, 300 miles becomes 200 miles when towing a standard trailer) like many trades people do, then sure, they’re not the car for you just yet. But for the majority of people who don’t travel 8 hours a day to and from work, and have a driveway of some description and don’t tow trailers every single day, EV’s are a solid option.
Fyi, I live in Australia and own an EV. Not once have I ever seen one pulled over flat. Teslas especially will warn you and try to direct you to a charger when your battery is low, or if your destination is too far away. If you’re paying the bare minimum attention to what you’re doing, going flat is very difficult unless you’re doing it on purpose. Which is more than I can say for fuel cars. Most people ignore the fuel guage and when they notice they’re low, they have to find a fuel station on their own. Sure there are more of them. But cars like teslas will automatically add charging to your navigation if needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually you have that backwards. Modern EV batteries are designed to, and are showing to last up to 400,000-500,000 miles. twice the average lifetime of modern combustion engine. In addition, Battery replacements only cost between $4k-$7k depending on the battery size, inclusive of labour. Most people confuse batteries, with battery packs. And most media, obfuscate the issue by intentionally confusing the two. A battery pack, which includes all the structural elements to hold the batteries, wiring harnesses between batteries, Battery management systems inclusive of coolants and heating elements indeed cost more than it would be worth to replace. However this is different to the batteries. Most EV's use batteries like the 18650 batteries (do a google image search, they look like big AA batteries). These are easily replaced individually by removing the seats, lifting up the floor and replacing the batteries like you would a giant TV remote. Suggesting you need to replace the battery pack instead of the individual batteries is a little like saying you need to buy a new PS5 controller every time the controllers AA batteries go flat. Which is, to say the least, absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomster7574 as for the comments on batteries. Modern EV batteries have as standard an 8 year unlimited mile warrantee. Currently they last approximately 1,500 cycles to 70% health. Meaning that for a vehicle with a range of 400 miles, it would take you 600,000 miles to reach that point. at which point you still have 100% of you performance and efficiency left and 70% of your original battery capacity, meaning you still have 280 miles of range left. which is still alot.
in other words, Ev's will and are currently showing that they will last twice the lifetime of a standard combustion car or hydrogen vehicle. and I say currently because its not uncommon anymore to find an older generation Tesla Model S (2012 MY for example) which have lasted between 400,000 to 500,000 miles and are still going.
as for fuel cell vehicles there is next to no maintenance other than looking out for rust in areas already made rust resistant. What do you think there is to service? just like EV's fuel cell vehicles have only a few hundred moving parts compared to the hundreds of thousands in a combustion car. You dont have regular replacements of oil, oil filtres, spark plugs, fuel pumps, timing belts, etc etc etc which have to be constantly replaced to keep the car running. So the cost to maintain a fuel cell or an EV is significantly less than a combustion car which runs of fossil fuels or hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muzahirabbas8282 hat depends entirely on the size of the battery for your drone example, but happy to discuss why hydrogen would be unsuitable for small drones.
as for Tesla vs hydrogen the reasons I believe hydrogen will no be competitive in the domestic vehicle market are plain when outlined and I am happy to discuss. It comes down to the following 7 reasons. (I will be using comparisons between the Toyota Mirai and Tesla Model 3 as they are both similarly sized vehicles in the same category (mid-sized sedan). It is also worth noting that the Mirai is much longer than the model 3 but its cross sectional area is only marginally larger than the model 3 (around an inch wider and taller). In addition the Mirai despite being hydrogen weighs slightly more than the model 3. but only by a few hundred kg.
1.) Performance
2.) Handling
3.) Safety
4.) Space
5.) Cost
6.) Refuelling
7.) Lifespan
1.) Hydrogen Vehicles suffer from a fatal lack of performance. This is because Fuel Cell (which is the most efficient way to use hydrogen. you don't want a combustion vehicle as you will see in (4.) & (6.) has a power output entirely dependant on the size of the catalytic area in the fuel cell. With a fuel cell taking up the entire engine bay, there is still not enough power to adequately accelerate the car but only just enough to allow it to cruise. This means they mostly need batteries or some other form of energy storage to provide the additional power to accelerate the car. Unfortunately the smaller the battery, the less power output it has, and with so little space as outlined in (4.) most hydrogen vehicles don't have very large batteries. By contract performance, due to the large batteries, comes naturally to electric vehicles. The model 3 for example does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, whilst the Mirai does 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. a whole 6 seconds slower.
There are some hydrogen vehicles which can go quickly, such as the Hyperion XP-1. However this is a very expensive, purpose built performance car. It has 3 fuel cells and an array of super capacitors to help with acceleration. All the space is taken up by fuel tanks and fuel cells. meaning its about as practical as a daily driver as lamborignia Aventador. Meanwhile the Tesla model S plaid can out drag the hyperion despite the tesla being a 4 door, 5 seat large luxury sedan.
What I am getting at is that there is a physical limitation to the performance of these vehicles in balance with their practicality. More power means you'll need to sacrifice space, seats and practicality. For Battery Electrics (BEV's) this isn't the case.
2.) as well as performance, Handling is impacted as well when in comparison to BEV's. That is because the while base of the car is used to house fuel tanks. which are round by necessity. Ontop of those they have to place the battery packs and exhaust system. Then in the engine bay they have to place the fuel cell. All together this gives a higher centre of gravity which results in less elegant handling. BEV's by comparison have what are called skateboard battery packs, This puts the centre of mass almost at the wheel axis giving it incredible natural handling and natural roll over prevention.
3.) Let me start this off by saying hydrogen vehicles are Engineered to their teeth to be safe. They are safe vehicles. Safer than combustion vehicles, but not as safe as BEV's. This is due to several factors. one of them being the roll over. As noted in (2.) the vehicles have a higher centre of mass making them easier to roll over. Whilst lower than a combustion vehicle (ICE) they are easier to tip than a BEV. This impacts survivability in an accident. What they also dont have are crumple zones. As noted previously, the fuel cell stack is usually in the engine bay which is the case for the Mirai. As I will explain in (4.) there is little room in the boot either. Because Hydrogen is extremely explosive in ranges of 4%-74% air saturation, Fuel cells and fuel tanks are critically protected. They do this with chassis reinforcement and steel plate guards. (note that whilst the hydrogen, tanks, fuel cell, exhaust, batteries are all lighter in Hydrogen Vehicles than their equivalent in BEV's the Mirai is heavier than the Model 3. This is why, the added protection). These areas are very well protected. Whilst the tanks are very safe, and aren't usually prone to critical failure, they are safe in the event of over-pressure from crushing or punctures, however if you tear one open in an accident then they are very not safe. The vehicle turns into a bomb which can wipe out traffic and pedestrians within a few hundred meters of the vehicle. The kinds of forces which would result in that are the type of forces which tear vehicles in 2, chassis and all. Whilst those kinds of accidents are rare, they do happen and its not hard to find photos of similar accidents online. As such the chassis is reinforced to protect the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell. The tanks are also protected by steel guards. This means that the crumple zones for the front, rear and sizes are significantly compromised. Meaning lower survivability. Meanwhile BEV's excel at this. With nothing in the front but storage space, no fuel tank in the back, and no transmission or engine running the length of the vehicle, BEV's have higher than average crumple zones. Giving them excellent survivability.
To finish this point off. Hydrogen Vehicles are designed to be extremely safe. The hydrogen systems are extremely safe. but to do so they did have to trade off survivability in terms of energy absorption. (crumple zones).
4.) Space, Hydrogen vehicles suffer from a distinct lake of space which makes them impractical. By comparison, BEV's have alot of it. With not transmission running length, passenger space inside is generous. With no fuel tanks, the rear boot is very deep and spacious. With not engine the front of the car turns into another storage compartment. By comparison, Hydrogen Vehicles are the worst for space when compared to BEV's or ICE's. This is because while hydrogen is very energy dense (energy contained per kg), even at 700 bar (the pressure its stored at for hydrogen vehicles. This is also 32 times the pressure LPG is stored at. For reference, big steel Gas Bottles). they have very low volumetric energy density (energy per volume). While the Mirai can get 400 miles on only 5.6 kg of hydrogen. That hydrogen, even at 700 bar, takes up a whopping 147L of fuel tanks. That's ALOT of space gone! sitting on those fuel tanks are batteries for acceleration and in the front, fuel cell stack. all together what this means is no storage in the front. very little internal cabin space and even less boot space. In real world metrics, the Mirai is dimensionally larger than the model 3, about 1 inch taller and wider and 11 inches longer. Yet it has less internal cabin space for passenger. infact so little that you cant fold the rear seats down if you want to extend the boot. The boot of the Mirai is also so small that despite it being a mid-sized sedan. It has a smaller boot than a Toyota Yarris. A vehicle less than half its size and 2 whole size categories smaller. Infact the Yarris beats the Mirais boot space by more than 100L!
1
-
@muzahirabbas8282 When you consider the poor performance of the Mirai in terms of acceleration, you can begin to see why these vehicles are becoming impractical. If you want a daily driver you have to get used to driving one of the slower cars in its class. If you want speed you have to get used not being able to carry passengers or even your shopping.
5.) Cost. Hydrogen is expensive. This is due to its efficiency and how the energy is transported to the car. Hydrogen is either made via electrolysis, where you pump in electrical energy from grid to separate hydrogen from something like water, or its made with fossil fuels. Less energy intensive but VERY dirty for the environment. The cheapest form of Hydrogen is unsurprisingly the former. Whilst still using a large amount of energy, (although not as much as electrolysis), its still very expensive. This can be as much as twice the price of petrol per mile range. With Electrolysis, even more so.
To compare it to BEV's you have to understand how much energy is used and where from. If you want green hydrogen you need electricity from the grid. The same grid that would charge a BEV. (so all those "EV's drive on coal" arguments would also apply to hydrogen except much worse as you're about to see). From outlet to wheel the efficiency of a BEV is around 80-85%. Electrolysis alone is 70% efficient. That is that if you were to get 100 kWh from the grid, you would get 70 kWh of potential chemical energy of hydrogen as a product of electrolysis. The rest of the energy is lost to heat and breaking chemical bonds. It then has to be compressed to 700 bar (which is not a little bit of pressure). This is only 80% efficient. It then has to be transported which is generally around a 15% less (if we assume the trucks are hydrogen powered). Then it gets put into a hydrogen vehicle. Now a combustion hydrogen vehicle has efficiencies between 15%-20%. But a fuel cell has an efficiency of 60%. Then it just puts it through an inverter 95%, and into an electric motor 97%. So from the 100 kWh supplied by the grid to an outlet, For a hydrogen vehicle only around 26 kWh actually makes it to the wheels. For a BEV for the same 100 kWh supplied to the same outlet, around 80 kWh reaches the wheels.
What does this mean to cost? it means that you need 3 times more energy per mile to run hydrogen. Which means on energy costs alone its 3 times more expensive. For a BEV, that is the only cost to consider. For hydrogen you also have to consider the cost of water, the cost of the hydrogen plants overheads (staffing wages, maintenance, admin and logistics) and the cost of transportation. Then that plant has to slap on profit overheads. After all they have to make a profit, Then fuel stations have to buy this hydrogen at that price, and add in their overheads and slap their profit markup onto because they too need to make a profit. BEV's are around 10x cheaper to run per mile than ICE vehicles. Meanwhile hydrogen costs around 8x as much per miles than ICE vehicles. Even if they reaches cost parity of ICE vehicles hydrogen will still be 10x more expensive to operate per miles. And in energy alone, they will always be at least 3 times more expensive.
It is also worth noting the arguments against EV's for things like "the grid cant handle EV adoption" is 3 fold worse for hydrogen.
6.) Refuelling. This may seem like something hydrogen vehicles have an edge with but that's sadly not the case. For Domestic passenger vehicles, refuelling is a disadvantage. This is because the average person has daily commute of around 70 miles. The model 3 for example has a range of 325 miles. More than enough to cover you daily commute. And since you only need access to electricity to charge an BEV, this means that you can charge at home. Simply plug it in when you get home, enjoy your evening, get up in the morning and you have the equivalent of a full tank every morning. 0 time out of your day. Also thanks to the relatively cheap to install super charger network, when you do happen to do longer trips of say, 1,000 miles, it will only add an extra 1.5-2 hours to your travel time when you take out the time for the inevitable toilet and food stops. and mind you only 1.5-2 hours added to a trip somebody might do once a year at best. Hardly a daily occurrence. However for hydrogen, you have to refuel. Regularly. The average person refuels once per week which means that on average a person will spend 16-17 hours per year refuelling their car. Which is far more than the 1.5-2 hours added to a trip you might do once a year. So in the case of domestic passenger vehicles, Refuelling is a disadvantage.
7.) Lifespan. Contrary to popular belief (thanks media idiots), BEV's are incredibly long lasting. Current EV batteries are designed to last well longer than 500,000 miles or more with many on the road already passed 400,000 - 500,000 miles on their original batteries. They last approximately double the lifetime of a standard combustion engine. But what about Hydrogen?
Hydrogen vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap which says "do not refuel after xxxx date". This is because of 2 reasons. A.) hydrogen embrittlement of materials. Hydrogen atoms are small. very small. so small that they can pass through solid metal. When they pass through certain materials they degrade the integrity of that material making it weak and brittle. This isn't a fast process however. But it compromises the lifespan of anything in contact with or even near hydrogen in its gas form. B.) is because of the pressure its stored at. As hydrogen fuel is used, it doesn't "drain" the fuel tanks but depressurises them. The pressure inside that tanks are constantly cycling from 1 bar to 700 bar as you use a refuel the vehicle. This has an enormous fatigue loading on the fuel tanks. After a certain amount of time, this will reduce the safety and integrity of the tanks. As a result of those 2 things, hydrogen vehicles get an expiration date of around 10 years. Whilst for a standard person 500,000 miles represents 30-40 years of driving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma people seem to be disillusioned about the realities of the technology. And the point is I don’t want people to have the wrong information or assumption. Such as hydrogen would be any better for heavy haulage. There are some very real and serious physical limitations to hydrogen that nobody seems to talk about. And just people people put money into it doesn’t mean it’s good. People put money into Betamax, even millions of dollars has been spent on fly wire for a submarine. Doesn’t mean they’re a good idea. Mazda spend untold millions on rotary engines, where did that go?
You can get a hydrogen car if you want but let me sum up how that would compare to if you had got an EV,
-You get similar ranges, so no advantage there.
-you’d be paying 20x more for fuel per mile.
-you’d been buying a car that would last around 1/3rd the lifetime of the EV.
-it would be exceptionally slower than the EV.
-you would buy a car that not only has pathetic cabin and cargo space compared to an EV, but in its class as well (the mirai for example, despite being a midsized sedan has almost 100L less boot space than a toyota Yaris half its size! and so little cabin space you can’t even fold the rear seats to extend the boot if you needed)
-you’d be getting something way less green. Not only is most hydrogen made from fossil fuels, even if you had green hydrogen you’d need 3-4 times as much grid electricity from the same grid per miles worth of hydrogen.
-you’d be wasting time. BEV’s can charge from home while your asleep, for daily commutes 99.9% of the year that means you’d have a full tank every morning. Hydrogen can’t do that, you’d have to spend on average 17-16 hours per year getting fuel.
These short comings also reflect on hydrogen vs electric trucks. With less cargo space and less power and even less range with drastically higher operating costs and drastically lower lifespans. They’re not a good solution there either.
Unfortunately those are the facts. They’re not competitive. What they are, is a way out for fossil fuel companies as ICE cars are slowly being phased out globally. Not only is hydrogen predominantly made with fossil fuels but they also have to be distributed by fuel stations. Of which fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on, neither could be said about BEV’s. If you think the automotive industries biggest partner (fossil fuel companies) aren’t having any influence on the push for hydrogen, even in Toyota, then think again.
All you have to do is look at all the lies and disinformation you hear about BEV’s but that you never hear about any of the negatives about hydrogen. Like how they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life to 10-15 years of life. Bet you never heard about that. But I bet you hear that EV’s catch fire despite statistics, automotive safety authorities and others all agreeing that BEV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and less serious when they do combust in terms of survivability.
People seem to think hydrogen is this underdog that will eventually triumph, but it’s not, hydrogen is being boosted at every corner and batteries are being smeared at every turn.
I mean hell, a mirai costs more without incentives than a Tesla model 3 but in some places you get get one with incentives for $8k USD brand new! Plus $15,000 of free fuel from Toyota! suffice to say there is a good reason that even with all they, hydrogen has consistently failed to take off. They’re just not good for cars/trucks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hydrogen cars already come with batteries. But not for more mileage, but because without them the Fuel Cell cant provide enough power to adequately accelerate the vehicle. In addition, due to the laws of thermodynamics, we already know there is little room for improvement to hydrogen efficiency, maybe 5% or 10% over the full cycle optimistically.
Additionally, Hydrogen is light but it takes up a lot of volume. Lets compare the pair. The Toyota Mirai and the similarly sized Tesla Model 3.
Tesla Model 3 has 0-60mph acceleration of 3.2s. The Mirai does this in 9.2 seconds.
The Tesla Model 3 has an extraordinarily large trunk, with an additional trunk in the front. The Mirai has no front trunk and a trunk so small, that a Toyota Yaris which is less than half its size has a whopping 100L more than the Mirai, due to the fact that the Mirai carries 141L of tanks to travel its 400 mile range. Thats a larger fuel capacity than a ford F150!
The Model 3 has class leading cabin space, which means there is more than enough space to fold the rear seats to extend the boot. The Toyota Mirai has so little cabin space that you cant fold the rear seats down.
The Model 3 has a range of 325 miles, the Mirai has a range of 400 miles, only 75 miles more range.
So for an unusable boot space, Pathetic acceleration, cramped cabin and fuel costs putting it around 20x more expensive per miles than the Tesla, you only get an additional 75 miles.
Thats including the fact that the Mirai HAS lithium Ion Batteries on board to store electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
check again. Currently EV batteries are 95% recyclable with modern technology. Meanwhile the pollution over the lifetime of a combustion car from not only burning fuel but also refining that fuel plus all the regular service parts like belts, spark plugs, filters, oil filters, oil replacements etc etc etc. They're significantly worse than EV's.
Then there is hydrogen, the only way to create enough hydrogen for demand even if Hydrogen was as prevalent as BEV's are today, would be to split fossil fuels. As fossil fuels are Hydro-Carbons. chains of hydrogen and carbon. This requires ALOT of energy, also supplied by fossil fuels, and when you get the hydrogen is extremely difficult to capture the carbon left over and often ends up in the atmosphere. This means that hydrogen per mile would be MORE POLLUTING than using a normal combustion car. just you are emitting water so it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You can create hydrogen through electrolysis, called green hydrogen, but this isn't scalable for the required amounts and requires far more energy from a powerplant. Its literally more energy efficient to use that same energy from a power plant in an EV than using it to create hydrogen fuel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well. No. Electric is still far more efficient. It’s actually even more fuel efficient to charge your EV using a cheap portable generator than it is to use that fuel even in a modern engine.
And whilst some engines do last up to a million miles through extensive and costly maintenance and re-building and re-furbishment of the engines, the majority of ICE don’t last longer than 250,000 miles. Hydrogen less so at 100,000-150,000 miles.
Meanwhile contrary to popular belief, modern BEV batteries are designed to last and are showing signs of lasting up to and exceeding 500,000 miles even without all that expensive upkeep like you’d do with ICE.
It should also be noted the natural performance characteristics of BEV’s over ICE or hydrogen.
Then you have the cost of operation. Pre- Ukraine war fuel prices. BEV’s can operate for as little at $0.06 per mile. Petrol of a similar sized and performance car would cost $0.17-$0.20 per mile (depending if your car with similar performance takes premium or not). And for hydrogen it costs $0.23 per mile.
So quite clearly electric costs significantly less than either
Next you also mentioned child mining. You’re probably about to eat those words so here goes. Modern EV batteries rolling off the line in 2022, don’t use cobalt. Which is the only material in EV’s linked to child mining. Further to that most EV makers like Tesla have signed ethical sourcing agreements to only use ethical cobalt.
Lastly, whilst the largest consumer of “pure” cobalt are EV’s the largest consumer of cobalt by mass which means, inclusive of cobalt based compounds and chemicals, are and by a long margin fuel refineries
So whilst you want to virtue signal for “petrol heads” about EV’s potentially taking advantage of child miners, ironically petrol heads are the single biggest contributor to child mining.
I’ll let they sink in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArchAngelAzmuel it’s not really. Let me explain why a hydrogen powerplants is, to use the technical term, stupid.
Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally in its pure form, you need to separate it, either from natural gas (releasing cO2,) coal (also releasing cO2) or water. Either way, It requires a hell of a lot of energy most of which you don’t get back, you then need to compress it requiring more energy again. Finally it has to go through a fuel cell, which wastes almost half the energy that was left. The end result is that you only get around 30% of the electricity you initially put in to create the hydrogen.
As an example a whole factory in Melbourne was converted to create hydrogen. It has a huge 200 kW electrolizer. And a 2,000L storage tank where it stores the hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. Running for 24 hours that 200 kW electrolizer only produces 80kg of hydrogen (enough to fill 14 hydrogen cars). Which means it takes 4,800 kWh of electricty to produce 80kg of hydrogen. (Without even considering the energy required to compress the hydrogen).
If you were to run that back through a fuel cell to create electricity, you’d get 1,584 kWh. You’ve lost 67% of your energy. With only 33% remaining.
It would be better to just use the energy from the power plants for other uses instead of making hydrogens, or even in grid scale battery or pumped hydro.
If you were to convert that
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adventurerwannabe well the deciding factors for me, in no particular order, we’re:
- more space in the Y. It has a significant larger front and rear boot, more rear passenger space and more cabin head room than the Kia.
- access to the Tesla super charger network. Huge bonus if you’re finding yourself travelling for a holiday or family event.
- longer battery warranty than the Kia
- more efficient than the Kia, saves money on electricity
- less maintenance than the Kia, saves money on maintenance.
- if you go for the long range Y, more range and performance for the price.
- better software integration. The Tesla app is in a whole other league, no key, no unlock or lock dance with the handles like the Kia, it’s all automatic with your phone. Set and forget completely. The app lets you do exponentially more than what kia offers, even see the cameras on the car remotely from anywhere. Right on your phone. Live.
- free over the air updates which the Kia doesn’t have meaning the model Y gets better with age.
- more seamless systems integration through the screen. All the systems are designed and implement by the same company, Tesla. Gives a real iPhone level intuitiveness to the experience and the car in general has a lot more software features than the Kia like dog mode, climate keep, cabin overheat protection. The Kia’s systems, like most auto makers, are subcontracted out to dozens of different countries so each has a different feel and usually don’t interact well with one another. Makes the system feel a little clunky and clumsy in comparison.
- sentry mode/dash cam mode. The Tesla uses the onboard cameras to monitor the car while your parked and records footage of anyone or anything that gets too close to your car. (Search wham bam Tesla cam on YouTube. This system can also function like in in-build 360 degree dashcam.
- better autopilot software the improves with over the air updates regularly.
Those are the factors that got me over the line. And to be honest, the sentry camera already saved me two huge bills, one person used my car as a door stop to load stuff in his rear door and it scratched and dinted the hell out of the car. And another car a few months later ran into the side of me while I was parked. Both times I got it on camera and both times I got their number plate and them in the act. Made insurance claims simple and I never had to pay the excess as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also Australian, I don't think mass hydrogen producing is feasible in Australia YET, or practical at the moment either. We are blessed with an overwhelming amount of renewable energy potential but lack the political motivation to enact it, mostly due to gas, coal and oil company "donations". However here is the problem, our coal and gas power plants are retiring in the next few years. It is too late to build more fossil fuel power stations to pick up the slack as they take too long to build which means we NEED to be building renewables as they are faster to produce and install.
However, either way we are going to run through a patch of very limited power production. Whilst I think we wont get to rolling black outs we certainly wont have any extra power lying around for a while. And I say a while because I am accounting for the progressive take up of BEV's despite the governments taxing and bad-mouthing of EV's.
This is a key detail as green hydrogen requires ALOT of electricity. after production and compression, for vehicles it requires as much as 3-4 times more electricity per kilometres worth of hydrogen compared what a similar sized BEV would use per kilometre. The government is well aware of this however, and know that we wont have the spare electricity generation to produce that much green hydrogen. As such their current proposals are to produce blue hydrogen from natural gas, which is arguably worse for the environment than if you just used that gas in LPG gars or power generators as you're burning gas, to separate more gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
For that reason, whilst Australia might become a huge exporter of Hydrogen, it wont be GREEN hydrogen. Which is also going to be partly why mostly hydrogen cars wont be popular in Australia, or at least, not green in Australia.
Unfortunately for Automotive purposes, Hydrogen cars are abhorrently outmatched by BEV counterparts, so demand isn't going to fuel supply in this car and supply isn't going to fuel demand either in our automotive market. The only way Hydrogen cars will take off in Australia is if Technology improves beyond a point which is physically possible, or the government forks out huge amounts of money to subsidise both the cars for purchase as well as the fuel to make them even close to competitive with BEV's which would be a HUGE sink for taxpayer money.
I am happy to talk about the finer details if you'd like, such as the new hydrogen plant in Altona, Melbourne which is.. to say the least, just a very expensive marketing ploy, or why Hydrogen cars are so outmatched on the market by BEV's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deathbyunicorn5213 it’s produces at minimum, best case scenario, 2-3 times more emissions per mile than a BEV. As for lithium, hydrogen vehicles don’t last very long. Ironically the lithium batteries they use are the longest lived part of the power train. The fuel cells only last between 100,000 and 150,000 miles and the fuel tanks are only rated for 10-15 years. Infact hydrogen cars come
Off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap. Meanwhile modern BEV’s are rated to and are showing to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles with new battery tech promised by both Toyota and Tesla taking that number past 1 million miles. So at current, to meet the same lifetime service as 1 BEV, you have to manufacture and dispose of 2-3 hydrogen cars, and in 2022, that could be as more than 4-6 hydrogen cars to 1 BEV. And then considering that they then emit at best 3-4 times as much emissions per mile as a BEV. They’re no where near as green as BEV’s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekmccord3798 The corolla isnt a great example. for starters it averaged a remarkably slow 67km/h over the course of the race (41 mph). it also had to be refuelled on average every 10.2 laps meaning it only got 46km (28.5 miles) before needing refuelling. And the amount of fuel it used is astonishing. Over the course of the race the corolla used 3 full semi trailers worth of hydrogen. which can be seen in red high pressure tanks stacked on top one another over 2 large semi trailers at the pit area.
In any case for your concerns about BEV's they're a little misplaced. As far as charging stations, as long as you can connect to a wall outlet. you can charge. I have an EV. I havnt installed my home charger yet (3 years now) because i've never had the particular need to and im lazy. I use the power outlet. I drive between 100-200km in a day. and it charges fine overnight from a wall outlet while I sleep.
As for if the grid can handle it or not. You likely wont get a hydrogen car expecting to use blue or brown hydrogen. as they release more emissions than if you had just used those fossil fuels as fuels in the first place. making them worse than driving an ICE car in terms of emissions. which is the only thing going for it since you have worse performance, range and practicality (cabin and boot space) with hydrogen compared to a ICE or BEV car.
If you're using green hydrogen, you're using grid electricity. Yes, the same grid that charges a BEV. Except you need 3-4 times more electricity per mile to create hydrogen for the same demand. As an example if I were to drive 200km in a day, I would need 26kWh of electricity to charge my car back up. For hydrogen, if I were to drive 200km, I would need to use 97.5 kWh of grid electricity to produce enough hydrogen to replace what I had just used. a demand on the grid almost 4 times greater.
So if you're worried about the grids capacity to charge BEV's. sorry. but its going to be worse with hydrogen. Unless you want to use an objectively worse car that creates more emissions than an ICE car per mile that doesn't last as long, goes slower, has less cabin and cargo space, doesn't go as far, and costs significantly more to refuel IF you can find somewhere with hydrogen. in which case, why did you buy the car? what's the advantage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMusic-ob2jj well the model 3 has the highest rated drivers satisfaction than any other car on the market. I own one and it’s one of the most exciting cars I’ve ever been in. Super car levels of torque, instantly, no gear shifts, no waiting to get the sweet spot with the RPM, just instant peak torque, coupled with it having a centre of mass around the axels, means it can corner like a car with anti-sway bars, without compromising how the suspension handles the bumbs as you go around the corner. It’s to me, and everyone who’s driven my car, an anti exhilarating experience that you simply cannot get with any other type of car making it such a unique and strange sensation. There’s even a term for it called “the Tesla giggle”
The only part you’re missing is the sound. Making me think that the only thing you find interesting about cars is how much noise they make. Which if that were the case (I’m sure it’s not) would be pretty sad to be perfectly honest. If the only time you feel good or enjoy something, is if everyone in a 4 block radius at 2am knows you’re around. You might benefit from some therapy.
As for charging times. Far from an inconvenience most EV owners list charging as one of the biggest convenience for owners.
That is because if you can charge from home, you are never waiting for a charge. The average person for 99.99% of the year, travels less than 70 miles per day, with ranges of 250-400 miles, charging from home. Whilst you’re asleep or not using the car, means never having to detour to a fuel station, standing outside on the cold, holding the pump.
Statistically this saves the average person 17-18 hours per year getting fuel. So far from being an inconvenience it’s actually a convenience feature for most drivers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LWRC why would I need to charge at the office or shopping centres? Do you need to refuel at the office or shopping centres? I just charge when I’m at home and not using the car. Never had a issue at all. What fresh crazy tinfoil bullshit are you on about now?
And sure, there are plenty of other types of vehicles which can outrun the passenger vehicles Tesla makes. But why don’t you look at it this way. Compare similar type vehicles. Tesla model S is a larger luxury SUV. Similar cars in its category and price range can’t come close to its performance. The model S plaid is well and truely in super car performance realm. It’s faster than most sport based 2 seater vehicles at 3 times the price.
You said your car. Not any car. What is your car? Can it do 0-60 in less than 2 seconds? Don’t think so. And where oh where would you find yourself in the position to race a another car to 150 mph (it’s 150 now right? Not 100? I’m assuming that’s because you’ve looked at the quarter mile times). And where you would do that repeatedly. No, everywhere, where it counts, on the roads, freeways, traffic light, you will always be creamed by electric. At the lights and there is a merge to a single lane ahead, too bad, eat EV’s fresh air and dust, finally opened to an overtaking lane on a freeway? Too bad. So sad. There will never be any situation which hasn’t been specifically orchestrated, wildly outside every day life to give you any energy edge you can cling to, where you win bud.
1
-
@LWRC for example, top gear did a review of the model 3 against its direct competitor, the BMW M3. Its a direct competitor in price, performance, class and size. The M3 being the BMW’s flagship vehicle. Touted as “the ultimate driving machine”. Top gear did drag races, model 3 won, handling and agility, model 3 won. Track lap times, model 3 won. The Tesla model 3 won in every single category usually tested by top gear. But this one episode and only this one episode did they invent a fourth challenge. A “driftability” test. To which they found they could fling the BMW out of control a lot easier than the model 3. (Because the model 3 had Better handling). And then declared the BMW the winner because the only category it won agains the model 3 in, a made up category never used to compare any car previously or since, despite losing in every convention category used in every review and episode comparing vehicles before or since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LWRC the US Lost a million dollar satellite because it could correctly convert from metric to their imperial units. The lunar missions were first calculated using metric system and converted to imperial after for show and for the public to understand.
Meanwhile Australia has been responsible for inventing:
-The black box,
-Electronic pacemaker,
-Google maps,
-Wi-fi
-Medical penicillin
-The polymer bank note (still something the US can’t get their head around)
-Cochlear implant (bionic ear)
-The electric drill,
-Permaculture,
-Ultrasound scanners,
-Plastic lenses,
-Inflatable escape slides on aircraft,
-Cervical cancer vaccine,
-Frazier lenses,
-Race cams,
And so much more. Believe me, nothing the US does bewilders me.
1
-
1
-
@LWRC Australia also invested the two stroke lawn mower, latex glove, insect repellent, garage roller doors, ballistic glass, pre-paid postage, the bushmaster armoured vehicle, the first mechanical refrigerator, thrust bearings, floatation separation, self erecting cranes, etc etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deltacharlieecho4732 1.) most home appliances use brush motors, when they burn out they burn the brushes, burn brushes don’t conduct as well or at all. EV’s use synchronous induction motors, no bush, no problem with overheating, and no bushes to wear out over time.
At current Electric motors in EV’s have proven to last over 1 million miles when used as taxis and for domestic purposes, have reached well over 500,000 miles. They are designed to outlast the car. As for cost of replacing the motor, around $4,000. Plus labour which wouldn’t be a lot, if you cracked your block or jammed a piston you’d be up to rebuild you engine block, as such a replacement engine would far exceed that cost. In addition, part of an engine being modular is that you have to constantly replace parts and fluids for the entire life of the car. EV’s don’t suffer this weakness. No mandatory servicing is required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bulletpointacademy No, no. Batteries are quite clearly better the Hydrogen. Allow me to explain in the below points.
1.) Efficiency: Hydrogen is inefficient. the production of hydrogen requires between 2 to 3 times as much grid energy per km worth of hydrogen than it would if you were to use that exact same grid energy in Battery Electric vehicle. (BEV). which means if you are not on a completely green grid. Hydrogen will produce between 2-3 times more emissions per km than Battery Electric.
2.) Cost: for Battery electrics you are just taking power the grid at what ever kWh rate the power companies sell it to you as. For Hydrogen you need 2 - 3 times more energy. meaning 2-3 times more energy costs per km. To pile onto that you would also have to pay for the demineralised water used to electrolysis to produce the hydrogen or the Methane or natural gas you would get your hydrogen from. Then you also have to pay for the staff, admin, logistics, upkeep maintenance and overheads of the hydrogen production facility including a sales mark-up. Then you have to pay for the Hydrogen to be transported to fuel stations. Then you have to pay for the fuel stations overheads, staffing and profit mark-up when they sell it to the end consumer. The result is whilst Batteries (in Australia at least) average around 1.8 cents per km, ICE cars average 12 cents per km, Hydrogen can be between 15-20 cents per km. Expensive.
3.) Performance: Performance comes naturally to BEV's. Their large battery packs able to produce large amounts of energy onto demand to the electric motors. Most Electric vehicles are very very fast. Hydrogen however, not so fast. That is because the fuel cells power output is largely dependant on the surface area of the catalyst. In a vehicle that space is too small to produce adequate acceleration but enough to maintain cruising speeds. So a battery is installed in fuel cell vehicles to absorb excess energy when it is demanded so that they can draw on that to adequately accelerate. Unfortunately small batteries can only provide small charges (or smaller than larger batteries) and with much of the space of a Hydrogen vehicle already taken up by their fuel tanks and fuel cells, they cant have very large batteries. This means they are slow. Whilst you can have cars like the Hyperion which is a hydrogen vehicle which does 0-60 in 2.2 seconds, this has been streamlined to reduce drag significantly, is a 2 seater vehicle with no luggage space, and has not 1, not 2, but 3 fuel cells which reduce the space for passengers, occupants, luggage and fuel. which means less range. By comparison the new Model S does 0-60 in 1.99 seconds and is a large SUV is an extra trunk in the front, a 5 seater 4 door car with impressive passenger space and cargo space.
4.) handling: Hydrogen vehicles don't have the low centre of gravity that BEV has. This is due to the fuel tanks. This raises the centre of gravity of the vehicle, meaning less handling and agility compared to BEV's (but better than ICE) and also reduces their overall safety rating (when compared to BEV's) due to higher roll over risk.
5.) safety: Hydrogen is extremely explosive in the presence of even minute amounts of air. It is extremely volatile. This coupled with the fact that hydrogen particles are so small they can leak through solid metal, means not only do you need exotic materials to contain and handle it. But the risk of explosion is very very high. To combat this most hydrogen vehicles use fuel tanks which are heavy and bulky. Usually triple layered, anti-puncture high pressure tanks (and I do mean high pressure. Hydrogen is stored at 32x times higher pressure than LPG). They also split them into 3 different tanks and have a whole host of engineered features to prevent explosions. This includes sacrificing occupant safety. That's right, to ensure the tank does not explode, they determined that it was better to potentially kill the occupants to protect the fuel tanks. This is because an explosion if a tank is breached, could not only take out the occupants but several nearby vehicles and pedestrians. BEV's on the other hand have some of the highest safety ratings out there. This is due to the reduced risk of fire and spontaneous combustion offered by not running a high temperature engine next to combustible fuels and hydraulics, but also because without a fuel tank, engine or transmission, they can effectively double the crumpling zone which drastically improves survivability. They also have such a low centre of gravity that even a large SUV like the Model X is nearly impossible to roll over.
6.) Infrastructure: This is a 2 part answer. Firstly lets talk about fuelling infrastructure. Because hydrogen can leak through most materials and is extremely explosive and is stored at pressures 32x higher than any gas currently stored at fuel stations, for fuel stations to store hydrogen they would have to be completely torn down, Specialty tanks installed underground, and the fuel station built ontop with specialty hoses and pumps installed for hydrogen. This is a very costly exercise to undergo. By comparison BEV infrastructure can be installed relatively cheaply to anywhere that is connected to electricity. Which is to say. Nearly everywhere.
Part 2 is energy infrastructure. As previously mentioned, Hydrogen requires 2-3 times more energy per km. Most people are already concerned about powering an EV dominant future. Especially if we are also overhauling to renewables. Given that, if I were to build 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 BEV's To power those same people if they had hydrogen vehicles I would need to build 2 or 3 wind farms.
7.) Refuelling: Refuelling is a good reason not to get a Hydrogen car. On average people will fill up once per week. They will detour 7 minutes to a fuel station and 7 minutes back on route. and spend 5 minutes filling and paying. This equates to between 16-17 hours per year. However for BEV's you simply charge whilst your at home and not using the car. Often while your asleep. meaning every morning, without having to go anywhere or do anything, you have effectively a full tank of gas every day. This means 0 hours wasted chasing fuel.
So hydrogen in almost every way is worse than BEV. However its not all doom and gloom or hydrogen. BEV's don't have the power density and rapid charging required for long distance freight and shipping. Hydrogen however does. So whilst for domestic passenger cars, there is nearly no reason what so ever to go with hydrogen over BEV. for trucking and freight, Hydrogen will be the ideal option. This means the future will likely require both kinds of technology to move forwards. Similar to how most suburban domestic passenger cars are petrol and most freight and trucking are diesel. Most domestic passenger cars will be BEV and most freight and trucking will be hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moodymoody2013 hydrogen isn’t the only solution. Big battery storage, hydro electric storage, kinetic storage, liquid salt storage, liquid air storage, the list goes on. In relation to efficiencies hydrogen actually sits fairly low. In that if you were to put in 100kWh into hydrogen storage, you’d only get 30kWh out when you need it later. Compare that to a big battery, if you stored 100kWh, then you’d get around 98kWh out.
Hydrogen is extremely wasteful as an energy storage solution and is only really talked about as a solution due to rapid refueling and fuel transport.
In terms of grid energy storage it’s a horrible solution. In terms of domestic passenger cars it’s a horrible solution. In terms long range freight, shipping, and air flight, it’s probably one of the only solutions. (One of)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hankmoody9965 that’s a very naive view of how the world works.
In reality thing become cheaper for 3 reasons.
1.) technology and manufacturing improvements which give better results for less cost. But this only happens if interest is generated in the development of the technology. That means people need to want them, they need to buy them. The money from the sales goes towards continued development.
2.) economy of scale, the more people want them, the more that are made. The more you make, the cheaper they are per unit. You want your car to be cheaper, people need to buy them more.
3.) second hand options. The more people buy into a market, the more second hand option are available as it penetrates through the market. But this assumes people buy them on the first place.
At any way you look at it, if you want an affordable EV you need to invest in them. Straight up.
As for the cost currently, the Tesla model 3 which is an excellent car goes for around the sale price tag of a BMW, or entry level Mercedes. Every time you see someone driving an BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar, Lexus, most Voltswagon models, new land cruisers or patrols, all those cars are worth more than a Tesla model 3.
That’s a lot of people who can afford one. How do other people get their hands on these cars? Second hand.
But nobody buys into EV’s in Australia because of all the misinformation and lies spread about them by the media. Also because they are new and people don’t often trust new. The way you get around that is with incentives.
1
-
1
-
@hankmoody9965 for my previous points 1 and 2, automotive manufacturers will only send vehicles over which do well in that market. If we don’t take up EV’s they won’t be sent here. There is a lot about supply and demand.
I wasn’t insinuating that you were anti-EV and I apologize if I came across that way. I’m just trying to outline that adoption won’t happen passively if there is an anti EV campaign actively working against it.
As for your issues raised, not quite 4 points but I’ll elaborate on the two you did raise and I might mention a few things you didn’t realise or didn’t know about.
Infrastructure: there is enough infrastructure in Australia for rapid charging alone to travel from Adelaide to cairns and anywhere in between. And they infrastructures is increasing constantly. I live in Melbourne with a model 3. I’ve never been excluded from going anywhere. Even with my standard range, not a long range variant. I even had to go pick my brother up from
Benalla in the middle of the night when he hit a roo. And I had no issue or second thoughts about it. It only took a 15 minute stop at the euro super chargers on the way home. Only slightly longer than the 5 minute fuelling stop id have to take if I still had my old Impreza.
Ontop of that I can charge my EV anywhere there is a power point. This means every times I’ve travelled somewhere, most places have some form of outdoor PowerPoint. I’ve stayed at multiple air bnb’s and gotten a full charge overnight. A step up from that is there are many many many places which have destination chargers. For example when I took a trip the the beach at Phillip islands, there was a destination charger at the public bus depot. I didn’t really need to but I plug in there and it meant I could leave the aircon going while we were at the beach on a 42 degree day and it was fully charged and Icey inside when we got back to the car.
Destination chargers are relatively cheap and easy to install and are popping up all over the place. If you want to see the tens of thousands in Victoria alone simply download an app called PlugShare and have a play. It outlines all public charging infrastructure in Australia.
The next you mentioned cost. Tesla’s are some of the highest priced EV’s on the market, because they’re luxury vehicles. I purchased mine for $60k AUD. I’m a lower middle income earner. It was a stretch and a big decision for me to purchase the model 3. But I did so because I worked out the following.
Fuel prices are only ever going to increase but when you work out the cost per km on the yearly average fuel price with a comparatively efficient 8L/100km car, you get 12 cents per km. Whilst a model 3 will use 1.2 cents per km worth of electricity which becomes cheaper if you also have solar.
Additionally EV’s don’t need servicing. There is absolutely nothing to service. That also saves a significant amount of money over time. And the more you drive the Tesla the more vast the savings become.
As it stands at the current rate I’ve been driving my Tesla it will have cost the same the purchase the $60k Tesla, charge it, and maintain it, as it would have if I had purchased, fuelled and maintained an entry level Toyota Camry.
So while the upfront cost is much higher and hard to swallow, ultimately it’s significantly cheaper, especially since the car is set to last around 20-30 years before it required a battery replacement.
So upfront cost is high, lifetime costs, much lower. As a result of working this out prior to my purchase, I decided that stretching my finances to buy a $60k car was cheaper and worth it in the long run but I also get a car that has the luxury and performance equal to or exceeding BMW’s Mercedes or Audi’s. I also get one of the highest rated cars for safety on the market.
So in all it seemed like a no brainer to me. But it’s something a lot of people don’t understand. I was spending $60 of fuel every week, now, instead of paying $60 per week on fuel, I’m spending $10 a week on electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eamonnmorris5331 in most places it is regulated by law that cars be advertised with a EPA, WLPT, or NEDC range estimates, depending on which country or even which state you are in. It is illegal for them to use any other rage estimates in those regions.
Tesla does a very good job at informing people about things the affect the range for people who pay attention. It’s part of the initial tutorial of the cars system. The car even tracks it for you and tells you what’s used the most energy and where everything has gone to and will even give you tips on how to improve range.
I cannot fathom how where you charge determines your range. That’s like saying where you fill your ICE determines how many litres your tank can hold. Seems a strange statement.
It’s also worth mentioning that ICE cars also suffer from the inaccuracies of standardised range testing. Often falling short of their targets, due to driving habits, weather, climate, tire pressure, after purchase modifications such as roof racks or bull bars, fuel purity, and other driving conditions. Making ranges vary just as wildly as EV’s.
The only difference is ICE’s don’t turn their engines on and off for sentry mode or cabin overheat meaning they don’t have those kinds of functionalities, that being said. If you’re so offended by those drawing power while parked, it’s trivially turned off if you do chose. So I don’t understand it becoming a hot topic of “inefficiency” when it does things ICE’s just can’t. Especially when they’re optional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@palmshoot 1.) Batteries are a lower fire hazard than even ICE vehicles. Something I have made abundantly clear.
2.)Hydrogen fires are quick because hydrogen is explosive. The mirai carries as much as 160 kg of TNT worth of explosive yield in its tanks. There is a very particular reason why you need to add an entire EV's batteries weight worth of steel to the chassis to protect the fuel tanks and its not because its safe. This also reduces the crumple zones by stiffening the chassis which ultimately reduces its safety
3.) all that extra steel for hydrogen car doesnt appear out of thin air, its mined.
4.) you have mine, smelt, machine, manufacture, use and then dispose of 2-3 hydrogen cars for the lifespan of a single BEV vehicle. Which do you think might be more environmentally friendly. 1 BEV battery vs 2-3 entire hydrogen cars with all their extra steel.
5.) I am well aware of the difference however having an entire economy of green hydrogen is not practical. Aside from costing at best twice as much to produce as other forms of hydrogen, it is also the slowest. A FACTORY sized production plant opened in Melbourne Australia. Toyota converted one of their old car factories there. It produces 80kg of hydrogen per day. Thats only enough to fill 14 hydrogen cars in a day.... for a whole factory worth. How many more of those do you need to build and maintain to service several million cars per day i wonder?
5.a) in addition, even green hydrogen is less friendly than BEV because it uses around 3-4 times as much electricity per mile. That means you have to use 3-4 times as much per miles worth of travel for hydrogen, from the same grid that charges BEV's meaning that on-road operational impacts are 3-4 times that of BEV for hydrogen. so not even close to being as green.
6.) Hydrogen isnt energy independence. its dependence. Hydrogen isnt a form of energy its a carrier of energy. You cannot get naturally occurring hydrogen anywhere. Either you take it from coal, gas or oil, or from power stations burning coal gas or oil at 3-4 times the volumes necessary.
7.) in relation to the parkers rechargeable electric car the term practical relates to it being A.) rechargeable as opposed to expendable batteries, B.) being able to produce replica's, and C.) being road legal (for that time). The car itself has a maximum speed of a whopping 2mph and a range of only 12 miles. Not what i'd call practical by todays standards. would you? didn't think so. Hence my original point stands. Electric vehicles did not have lithium ion batteries to produce a practical EV by todays standards. Hydrogen has everything it needed since the early 1960's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@palmshoot 3.) we discussed this. Hydrogen weighs about the same as BEV's. There is reason they have extra weight because they have extra material. I'm not saying hydrogen is mined im saying that the material used to reinforce the chassis IS. and needs to be done 2-3 times as often as a battery does because they dont last nearly as long.
4.)Energy always comes from somewhere.
5.)Hydrogen is poor storage. Not only can it leak out through solid metal and weaken the tank in doing so through embrittlement. But if you were to put 100kWh into hydrogen storage, you'd only get 30 kWh out. Also you would only be able to get it out slowly. because fuel cells are notoriously low power output. Further to that it takes a very long time to create the hydrogen. for example a 200kW electrolyser can use 4,800kWh in a day to produce only 80kg of hydrogen. (enough for 14 hydrogen vehicles). If it put that hydrogen through an electrolyser, it would 1,440 kWh out and it would take you nearly as long to do so. Not really worth it. It's more efficient to put that energy into BEV's, Big battery storage, hydro, liquid salt, kinetic storage, etc etc etc where you dont waste more than 2/3'd of the energy you're producing. If the world ran on hydrogen cars, we'd need 3-4 times more power plants and power infrastructure than if we ran transport on batteries.
5.a) You're not shifting pollution whilst hydrogen is green. The same power plants that you claim will produce hydrogen will also charge BEV's. I am not sure why you think if we go to hydrogen the grid magically becomes green but if we stay with batteries we'll just keep burning coal. Both hydrogen and Batteries will only ever be as green as the grid they're on. The difference being is you dont have to build, and maintain 3-4 times the energy infrastructure for batteries. Instead of 1 geothermal powerplant, i'd need 3 or 4 geothermal power plants to power the needs for the same drivers with hydrogen cars. Whats the environmental impact of building 3-4 more whole powerplants? This one is special pleading at its finest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@palmshoot When it comes to some of the numbers, I do the mathematics myself (being an engineer) such as resolving that the volumetric energy density of hydrogen is less than half that of BEV's. or that hydrogen requires 3-4 times as much energy to create per mile than a BEV needs to charge per mile. Other figures such as lifespan are a combination, you can find the lifespan of a fuel cell from Wikipedia to be 75,000 miles. Toyotas documents state theirs is 150,000 miles and Honda and Hyundai's documents say its 100,000 miles. BEV's on the other hand, whilst there isnt an official number, there is a cycle life stated. 1,500 cycles. to 353 miles to a cycle, Simple maths says it should last 529,500 miles to the life (which is to 80% original capacity). real life measurements of model 3's after 100,000 miles show little more than 2% degradation on average suggesting that those cars can exceed that lifetime. And the official lifespan of the motor and gearing in Tecla's is stated as 1.2 million miles which is pretty on-par for electric motors of any kind.
If you want me to expand on where I got things. Just as me direct and I am more than happy to explain. Or even provide my own calculations in full.
1
-
1
-
@palmshoot 1.) Hydrogen does burn in specific circumstances. Such as with inert gasses or low oxygen environments. When used for steel production its coupled with an inert gas to control burn instead of causing an explosion. There is no such cases for hydrogen vehicles. The only other instance is thorugh highly controlled high speed jet burners. Again, when i search for a peugot hydrgoen truck. All I can find are prototype units for hydrogen electrical generators which are porposed to be mounted to a fire truck but as of yet, have not been. As for my claim about safety. You need to read what I am writing. I am very clear about what I am saying. It is no seceret about the tested safety. I.e. crash energy absorption through crumple zones. However, things you cannot test for, such as spontaneous combustion, can only be determined through mass on-road use. There is no contradiction in what I am saying. Rivians factory caught fire not because of lithium, but because of flammable deposits from paint fumes which accumulated in the exhaust stack which was being demolished. But in any case, my points were to highlight hydrogens volitility, I was not moving goalposts. Simply highlihgitng that it is indeed explosive.
2.) Interchangeable materials for construction would benefit both FCEV's and BEV's. In anycase I doubt they will move to carbon fibre as the resins involved with binding the carbon fibres is extremely prone to weathering, especially when exposed to UV. If you've seen old fibreglass components that have been left outdoors you'd like be aware of this. Fibreglass and carbon fibre are mostly similar aside from the type of reinforcing fibre used.
3.) see above i guess?
4.) Agreed.
5.) Automotive hydrogen fuel tanks are made from aluminium reinforced high density polimers. Aluminium can be embrittled by hydrogen. The steel that makes up the chassis, is also steel, which can be embrittled by hydrogen which it will inevitabily be in contact with, Titanium guards which protect the fuel tanks can also be embrittled by hydrogen. As for the rest of the comment "vastly greater range" is not a thing for FCEV's. As discussed earlier, Hydrogen requires too much volume to fit the fuel in. You cannot get much further if any further at all than BEV's. At the Mirai's level you can get little more than 13% more range than its BEV's counterpart. As a semi truck level it gets 100 miles less range (1/5th less). Hydrogen is not as green as BEV's due to energy and transportation requirements. Espeically if your energy grid is not 100% green. In which case, hydrogen is significantly less green than BEV's. And why does reduced hydro-power become a factor here? considering that you need 3-4 times as much electricity PLUS water to produce green hydrogen. I am not sure you full thought through that argument. In relation to making hydrogen from solar. Well yes, because solar produces electricity. You could say the same about any electricity source. Similarly BEV's can charge from home solar and go 3-4 times furhter per kWh produced.
5.a.) closing coal plants does not affect the comparison between FCEV's or BEV's. They arent isolated on different energy grids. Reduced coal power is as good for BEV's as it is for hydrogen. Producing hydrogen on coal will be just as previlent as charged BEV's on coal. You need to think through your arguments a bit more I think. As for batteries being green. I fully acknowledge that they do produce alot of emissions to create. But over their lifespan significantly less than hydrogen cars even when both are on a fully green grid, simply due to the fact that you will have to build and then dispose of sevel entire cars to match the lifespan of one BEV battery. Something I outlined earlier. And with newer already announced battery technology that divide is going to go from 2-3 FCEV's to one BEV, to 7-8 FCEV's to one BEV. Thats not and never has been inconsequential.
6.) As previously discussed the wording from the US department of energy is disagreeing with you and so are the real world numbers. I have no problem agreeing with the department of energy. Fuel Cell costs have reduced. that is correct. They made no mention of their technical capabilities or improvement thereof, and for a very good reason. Improvment in one area is not improvement in all areas. Simply put, manufacturing of the fuel cells has advanced making them cheaper. The technology in the fuel cells have not.
7.) correct. My comment was based on the fact that they do not have "Engines"
8.) and hydrogen cars that crashed didnt make it to their projected lifetime. Need I remind you that odd's of an EV catching fire are up to 11 times lower than an ICE car catching fire and that there have not been enough FCEV's on the road to determine if they have more or less propensity to catch fire in relation to EV's. Please please PLEASE understand that point. With the current amount of FCEV's on the road, they could have a higher tendancy to catch fire precentage wise in relation to EV's even if not a single one has caught fire yet. As previously outlines. So please stop bringing up the same old debunked fire topic. its making you look silly. And good, well if you want me to expand on any of my calculations I would be happy to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troywardjr1216 do not be so arrogant as to presume what I think. I don’t think me or anyone else is inherently good. But “the simple fact we are allowed to live at all is a teatament to his love” is nonsense. How does that apply to people born into suffering, how does that apply to babies born with congenital diseases leaving them to die months, days, even hours after birth? Where was their love? This all might being knows what’s happening and has the power to change it but condemns them to die regardless. No, that’s not a god I want to worship.
Tell me. If you had the power to stop a baby being with a heart abnormality which would kill it only 3 days into life and all the while leaving it in excruciating pain for its entire, short life, through no fault of its own or the parents, if you were aware of that outcome, and had the power to cure the baby so it lived a normal life like anyone else, and you decided to do nothing but watch that infant die a horrible painful death, would you be accepted into the “kingdom of heaven?”
If the answer is no, take a very hard look at why, and if the answer is yes, again, take a very hard look at why. Either way that’s no god I think deserves anyone’s worship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
most of this is incorrect. Lithium clay extraction means that the clays in otherwise uninhabitable land in Nevada could service the Lithium needs of the EV industry for the next 40 years. From a patch of Nevada alone.
Also, Yes, flopped. Not just getting started, they've had no real advancements since the Mirai came out in 2014 only 2 years after the model S and 4 years after the Nissan Leaf (first mass produced EV). In 2020, there were 3 hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market which you could buy, as of late 2021, there are now 2 as Hyundai pulled its Nexo model. That means the market offering for hydrogen has reduced by 1/3rd.
Also keep in mind that having to fill at a fuel station actually wastes between 16-17 hours per year for the average person, whilst going to a super charger on the rare occasion you need to do more than 3-5 hours of freeway driving in a single day, (for most people less than once per year). you only waste between 2-3 hours. Seems like a no brainer.
Power production for EV's? how do you think hydrogen is produced? pixie dust? no, it used electricity from the very same grid. Meaning if you looked at efficiency loss of power production for BEV's you also have to do the same for Hydrogen. Meaning difference to the outcome will be exactly *zero*. Complaining thats not fair is like complaining both cars have to start at the same starting line for a drag race. Its stupid. for the comparison it was assumed 100kWh was supplied to a hydrogen production plant and the same 100kWh from the same power grid, was provided to a charger for a BEV.
Power in the US is also NOT principally produced with coal. The US's largest power source is GAS not coal. and even then it only makes up around 36% of the energy production whilst 30% of the US's energy comes from emissions free sources.
Also i'd hate to break it to you but Hydrogen isnt any good for trucks either. its just as bad for semi's as it is for cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Roflmfaoftw well firstly, Nuclear weapons don't typically create craters. that is because they are typically detonated around 1,000 - 15,000 ft in the air. (both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were detonated at around 1,600 ft) That is so they create something call an "airburst" which is far more devastating than the actual fireball. If it was cluster bombing you would see many little craters. like in Dresden.
Dresden only looks similar in destruction. But no in detail. Firstly buildings left standing are damaged almost evenly in all directions. some damaged on one side, some damaged on the other, buildings left standing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were damaged uniformly pointing to an epicentre, Burn marks in Dresden were also random, whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki had uniform burns all pointing towards and epicentre. Typical of a single large explosion, not many smaller ones.
Lastly, the rubble was evenly dispersed around Dresden, whilst in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you will notice that debris concentrations get lower and lower the closer you get to the epicentre which would be consistent with everything being blown away from a single spot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@travelwithtony5767 according to Allianz insurance, on their website, they state EV’s are 20 times less likely to catch fire compared to petrol or diesel cars, another study by AutoinsuranceEZ showed they were up to 60 times less likely to catch fire. this is backed up by the guardian, NRMA, the drive, the driven, Forbes, Kelly Bluebook, and more. As well as many other insurance companies.
Also safety regulators also state this such as the NHTSA in America, the Australian AANCAP safety board and others.
I havn’t included links, because I’m not sure if they’ll be filtered by this channel. But can do so separately. However using those names and a search for EV fire risks, for example I used “EV’s less likely to catch fire” and it all comes up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DanMcD80 you didn’t expressly state that no, but it is implied in your statement however so, yeah no. See lifetime emissions of a vehicle are set by, well, ya’know, their lifespan. EV’s have a longer lifespan than combustion cars these days and even if they had HALF the lifespan still have a better and smaller footprint than a combustion car does. By neglecting the lifespan of the cars after their leasing, to make the assertion that they’re worse. Clearly indicates that in your analysis, they stop serving any purpose or use afterwards which would be the same as sending it off for scrap. Which isn’t the case. You didn’t expressly state it. But like I said. I’m not a idiot.
So for you to claim that because leasing companies buy new cars, that this makes them worse than combustion cars, is categorically untrue and means you are entirely neglecting the full life cycle of the vehicle. Also, FYI, between two similar sized and spec’d cars, EV’s only have to drive between 20,000-30,000 miles before their emissions break even with ICE vehicles.
Leased vehicles in average travel 12-15k miles per year with an average lease term of 2-3 years meaning in most cases, they have had the same or less footprint than ICE vehicles before their leases end. Also keep in mind that the older models can be leased further to someone else for less or even retained by the same person on an extension. And like previously mentioned, when being retired by the leasing company, sell them to second hand drivers who continue to use them instead of buying a new car.
You analysis is flawed. As I said before, I’m not that stupid, I don’t believe you are either. This might work on your brain dead friends or relatives but not everyone is so gullible.
So either, stop making idiotic statements that are knowingly categorically untrue. Or face the fact that others are going to think you’re stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylermccarren565 well firstly, hydrogen can leak through solid metal. Like and engine block. And it creates a thing called hydrogen embrittlement of metals which makes the metal weaker and brittle. Like plastic left outside in the sun for way to long. This also means it will Leak through pretty much any gasket in a combustion engines meaning you need to replace all the gaskets. It’s also Phillic to oil, so it will dry out your cylinders. All and all it drastically reduces the lifespan of your engine and to make to remotely suitable you have to rebuild the entire engine with different deals and gaskets.
As for infrastructure, for similar reasons no. Not only is transporting hydrogen very difficult, so is pumping it at a fuel station. The average cost of retrofitting a gas station to dispense hydrogen is around $1.2 million per pump.
By comparison we already have electricity provided to pretty much everywhere. And to install a bank of four super chargers it only costs around $0.2 million.
As for energy requirements, it takes 3-4 times more grid electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen, than it does to charge 1 miles worth of power for an EV. So grid infrastructure upgrades for hydrogen cars would be 4 times greater than what you would need for EV’s.
So no, EV’s need significantly less infrastructure and no, you probably won’t be converting ICE vehicles to hydrogen. Engine lifespan as one, but range is another.
Final note explaining the range, 150L of tanks worth of compressed hydrogen takes a fuel cell car (which is 60% efficient) 400 miles. Combustion engines are around 20% efficient. So that same whopping 150L of hydrogen storage would only take you 130 miles in a combustion engine. Probably much less as a converted petrol engine is not designed to operate efficiently on hydrogen.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheKingkingg This is why people are stupid. They have a warped view on what professionals do. Anyone can regurgitate information. Thats not what doctors do and its not what Engineers do. If I design a new industrial automation system thats never been done before, thats not regurgitation. There is no text book which has a step by step instruction on how to design a never designed before process. There is no chapter in a text book titled "how to analyse volumetric energy constraints of hydrogen vehicles in comparison to battery electric vehicles that have only been on the road for a few years." you thinking that what we do is regurgitate is obscenely ignorant. We take information about the laws of physics, mathematics and physical properties to apply them to unique and vastly differing situations to determine a vastly wide range of principles or outcomes.
Further to that, doctors dont do that either. especially surgeons. There isnt a step by step on how to remove a tumor of exactly the size, consistency and location as the one in their patient. There is no chapter on what to do when they have atypical vein formations in the brain.
But what is probably most concerning is that you think doctors must "independently test" every medication they prescribe to know the "ingredients."
There are 9.2 million medical doctors in the world. You think that they all have to independently test Paracetamol to prescribe it for a headache? How many times do you think paracetamol has to be independently tested before other doctors can know its safe or is it every single 9,200,000,000 doctors individually?
If you say "oh, well then maybe not every 9.2 million, maybe like a few hundred or a few thousand in varying different application and situations should do that trick" then congratulations, you just describe the "peer review" process which defines not only the testing of known medication, but also the testing of laws of physics and mathematics.
congratulations, thats what they already do you absolute nugget.
But if you think doctors prescribing medication which has undergone thousands of well documented trials over several years to decades by experts in the field, is somehow irresponsible unless they thoroughly and independently test it themselves, each of the 9,2 million medical professionals out there. then you're an idiot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s actually not. World Powers are trying to impliment a global carbon tarif. That means that your exports/imports will be taxed depending on your countries carbon footprint and environmental policies. Weather Australia signs up for it or not, as the Tarif is imposed by the countries we’re importing/exporting with.
What that means is if we keep fucking around with environmental policies like tax EV’s and committing an entire generation to a gas lead recovery, pretty soon Australia won’t be able to compete on the global market, cost of living will skyrocket and exporting business such as fruit, ore, wool, meat, wine, gas, etc, will have to close as they won’t be able to competitively compete. So we’d be left with a tanked economy.
This isn’t something new either, it’s been inching its way toward implementation for years now and it’s almost here. So all these politicians who think a gas lead recovery is the way to go after they actively ignored the contradictions from their own science organisation (CSIRO) their own Energy Market operator, and Nobel prize winning economists to chase a gas lead recovery on the basis that they asked gas executives where recovery money should go and they said “just give us the money” despite gas being one of the most expensive forms of energy you can get.
Gas is definitely not the answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liahfox5840 thats no. thats not how science works... at all... we dont have to thoroughly interrigate every molecule of oil. are you insane? why the hell would you need to do that. Thats like thinking your need to interrogate every drop water on the planet to ensure it is infact, water. Thats a stupid way to look at things.
throwing a bunch of sciencey sounding words together doesnt make it mean anything "placebo theoretical science" isnt a proper sentence. and paid for by hidden agenda's? no again. thats not how science works. It works off peer review. Meaning outcomes and evidence need to published in full, replicated tens to hundreds of times around the world, verified by other experiments conducted using different methodology and and testing equipment all around the world. And only then, if all that evidence, third party testing, replication of results data and analysis stands unrefuted. then its considered fact.
You cant just say what ever you want and call it science. Everyone around the world from university to basement science enthusiasts, need to analyse your results, replicate them and concede the logic of your conclusions. Anyone on the planet can refute any scientific paper if they have the evidence to back it up, because then their claims will also be subject to peer review process.
so no. very much no, thats not how science works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s not massively available. Hydrogen in pure gas form doesn’t occur naturally on earth. You have to get it from one of two places. Fossil fuels, aka, HYDRO carbons. And splitting hydrogen from carbon, which releases the carbon. Not good. That’s the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen. The second way is through electrolysis of water, which just releases oxygen. But it takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to separate the hydrogen from the water. Electricity usually from a power plant, the same fossil fuel power plants that charges BEV’s. And after it’s been separate, collected and compressed you’ve used around 4 x as much electricity for 1 miles worth of hydrogen than charging 1 miles worth of battery charge run a BEV.
You can’t run power plants from hydrogen because you need power plants to create the hydrogen in the first place.
Batteries continue to become more energy dense and efficient, and getting better range, unfortunately every spare millimeter of space in a hydrogen car is taken up by fuel tanks to approximate driving ranges of EV’s from 2019. You can’t fit more fuel in them.
The fuel cells also wear out much faster than batteries do. They are slower at producing energy meaning the cars are generally slower and because hydrogen has to be processed so much with so much energy and then transported to specialty fuel stations, the cost of hydrogen is astronomical. When an EV can be charged at home, even from solar. For example my long range Tesla model Y costs me $1.6 AUD to charge each night. A mirai cost nearly $100 to do the same. My model Y has as much range, and breath takingly better space for cargo and passengers compared to the mirai and has better acceleration and handling and I can charge it anywhere, as where I live, there is only 1 hydrogen fuel station. So you can’t go further than 150 miles from that fuel station.
They’re impractical and not environmentally friendly, and not good for cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
people aren't getting hydrogen conversions. Sorry to burst that bubble. Most of those are scams. HHO systems for example. so no. Also it is worth noting that this channel also has a similar video exploring the positives of hydrogen. So if they were working for someone, they'd have their money pulled out under them a week later when they released their "why elon was wrong about hydrogen fuel" video. Although, you cant say much to defend hydrogen.
Contrary to... well your belief I guess, is that the largest sponsor of fuel cell vehicles are fossil fuel companies. (surprise!) That is because, and here comes another surprise. Fossil fuel companies aren't stupid. They know many countries have already set a deadline to phase out combustion cars. And those that haven't yet, are talking about doing so. They know that gravy train is pulling out of the station. hydrogen is their solution. Think about it. The only way we currently have to create enough hydrogen to feed a hydrogen economy is by getting it from fossil fuels. So they still get to sell their largest product. The only place you can get hydrogen is from fuel stations (I know you think otherwise, we'll get to that). And guess who has a monopoly of fuel stations and who's single largest income source are fuel stations? thats right. fossil fuel companies And guess which technology they lose all of that with? thats right. batteries as batteries can be charged from home. often with home solar or off a grid that's progressively becoming more green and using less fuels. No more selling fuels. Their second largest capital investment (fuel stations) and their single largest income source are gone as well.
Now you mentioned that people can produce hydrogen from home. not really because it takes so much damn energy to do it. To get it into a car you need to compress it to 700 bar. which is 100 times higher pressure than a trailer mounted air compressor. its ALOT and takes expensive and large specialty equipment to do so. Hydrogen also takes up alot of volume. the 5.6L that goes into a Toyota Mirai takes up almost 150L of fuel tank storage in specialty tanks because hydrogen can leak through and weaken solid steel. But back to the energy. it takes some 56kWh of energy to produce and compress 1kg of hydrogen (in ideal lab conditions mind you). For context an average family of 4 uses 18kWh per day. And you need 5-6kg of hydrogen to put into a car. (5.6 for the Mirai). for you to get that energy out of a wall outlet it would take you just over a week to generate 1 tank worth of fuel. With almost an entire years worth of energy for a family of 4. mind you a week to get enough hydrogen to go 400 miles. thats a rate of 0.5 miles per hour fuel production. With very expensive and large specialty equipment. So no, you're not going to be producing hydrogen at home.
Meanwhile a BEV can be plugged into a wall outlet. and 75kWh later you have the same range charged up. no specialty equipment, no years worth of energy. thats it.
Fossil fuel companies want hydrogen to work. thats why they get the lions share of funding both privately and from government. Thats why you and pick up the mirai which has a regular retail higher than a Tesla Model 3 performance before incentives for as little as $18k drive away with $15k of free fuel! Its also why you don't hear about the negatives of hydrogen such as the fact that they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their life to 10 years but you hear blatant misinformation about BEV's such as they're fire hazards (in reality 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely in an accident) or that they don't last long (modern EV batteries are rated to and are showing to last more than twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine).
So no, fossil fuel companies arent trying to get rid of hydrogen, they're trying to prop it up. and have been trying for some time now. and trying to squash batteries at the same time. Their most lethal competitor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
although Hydrogen still allows the paradigm of refuelling at a service station, for the most part infrastructure is already there. Electricity is provided to almost everyone on the globe (not all places obviously but find somewhere in a first world country without electricity). Further to that it only costs $600 or less to install a lower powered charger like a destination charger, or $200k for a bank of 4 super or rapid chargers, as opposed to having to work out logistic support to supply fuel stations with hydrogen, and the retrofitting of fuel stations to dispense hydrogen at the average cost of $1.2 million per fuel station for the upgrade. The biggest advantage however is that you dont have to set up a logistical network to supply electricity these days, or that it costs significantly less to develop charging infrastructure, the biggest advantage is that in leu of all that, you can charge your EV at home if you had no other options, or anywhere there is a power outlet. Meanwhile you HAVE to go to a hydrogen fuel station to get hydrogen, in Melbourne for example, the only place you can get hydrogen fuel is Altona. There is one. The Mirai has a range of 650km. Meaning you can only drive 325km away from the altona fuel station. So nobody is going to buy hydrogen for that reason. and no one is going to pay $1.2 million to fuel cars that nobody is driving. Its a chicken before the egg problem. Fortunately for BEV's the infrastructure is already mostly built.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nintetantha1567 in production. But not in use. The vast majority of hydrogen, and the cheapest forms of hydrogen, are made using fossil fuels. Which are hydro-carbons. Meaning they burn fossil fuels, to split more fossil fuels into hydrogen and carbon. That means it pollutes significantly more in creating the hydrogen than if you had just burnt the fossil fuels as a fuel directly.
Given this over the lifespan of the vehicles makes hydrogen extremely dirty.
Also worth noting that hydrogen lifespans are severely lacking. Whilst modern EV’s are design to and showing signs of lasting up to or exceeding 500,000 miles, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, etc all state their automotive fuel cells don’t last longer than 100,000-150,000 miles. And hydrogen cars come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their life to 10 years.
So whilst the manufacturing costs might be slightly less for hydrogen, how does that compare when you need to make and dispose of 4-5 whole damn cars just to match the life span one BEV? Yet alone the fact that hydrogen fuel production in most cases pollutes more than ICE vehicles per mile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also as one of those Australians currently being Taxed per km of driving an EV. I can confirm its still cheaper than a Combustion car. I drive approximately 65,000km per year. I purchased a Tesla model 3. Excluding other cars in its performance and price range using up to 11L/100km of premium fuel, most vehicles in its size class consume 8L/100km. So if we consider that the average price of fuel in Melbourne last year was around $1.40/L. My cost of electricity is 20c/kWh.
My EV consumes around 130 Wh/km according to the odometer average. That means over 65,000km it will cost me (65,000x0.13)x$0.2=$1,690 per year in electricity. (excluding free destination charging I get at lots of locations). For fuel it would cost me 8x(65,000/100)x$1.4= $7,280 per year.
EV's also use regenerative braking, this means they use their brake pads 5x less often on average. The average distance before replacement of brakes and rotors for a combustion car is 80,000km, for an EV that number is 200,000km, at a cost of $700. Incrimental cost towards this between petrol and EV is (65/80)x$700= $569 towards brakes and rotors, for an EV that is (65/200)x$700 = $227.
Then there is servicing. Not alot of people realise this but EV's dont actually have anything to service. The model 3 have Zero manditory regular maintenance. Infact the only thing it does have is it recommends tire rotation but that is optional in the eyes of the warrantee. Combustion cars not so much. For a combustion car, you need to do a minor $250 service every 10,000km and a $1,400 major service every 100,000 km. So the incremental service costs over the year would be ((65/10)x$250)+((65/100)x$1,400)=$2,535 and for an EV thats... well $0.
So it costs me $1,917 per year to operate my Tesla Model 3. But if I had a Petrol car it would cost me $10,384 per year to operate.
But we'll add in the tax, 2c per km. that adds $1,300 per year But in that state EV's also get a $100 discount towards their rego each years, so it becomes $1,200. In other words the difference is now $3,117 per year against 10,384 per year. So I get a saving of $7,267 per year in my pocket.
Averaged per km, EV's cost $0.048 (4.8c) per km. For a petrol car that doesnt have the luxury features and performance of the same EV (remember above they were 11L/100km), it costs $0.16 per km. So 16c per km. I am saving around 11c per km.
EV's even with the tax are significantly cheaper to operate than a petrol car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edwardk12687 in most places EV’s are as cheap to insure as any other new car. As for the replacement cost of the battery. I’m not talking about a refurbished engine. I’m talking about a new engine. You can get second hand battery packs. Sure, but just like a refurbished engine. They may be better than the engine you have, but still not as good as a new one.
The average age of a car in the US is 12.5 years. But the average end of life age for vehicles in the US before major mechanical failure, is 14 years. And it’s a well known fact that as ICE engines get older, the become less efficient, so they use more fuel, less reliable and need more regular servicing and those servicing costs become more expensive.
They are, for sure, outliers but the majority is still the majority. EV’s however don’t lose efficiency, just capacity. But only very slowly. Infact the end of life of an EV is classed as when the battery loses 20% of its original capacity. Which is estimated to occur after twice the lifespan of an ICE engine. But with zero of the servicing.
And sure parts might be cheap for your mustang. But you still need to buy those parts. You don’t need to do that for an EV because it has none of those parts. So bragging that it’s cheap isn’t exactly a flex.
Let’s not forget that EV’s spend as much as 10x less on fuel than an ICE car does, offering substantial savings for the driver.
As for impacts. They are substantially cleaner than ICE vehicles. Their initial footprint for manufacturing is higher, granted, but their operational footprint is substantially less. And over only around 15k-20k miles their overall footprint is less than that of an ICE car. Let’s not forget that for every mile you drive an ICE vehicle you have to drill for the oil. Put it on a ship that burns straight crude oil to ship it to a fuel refinery which then uses breath taking amounts of electricity as well as burning more crude oil to boil the oil to make petrol and diesel. It the has to be driven by giant diesel trucks to the fuel station before it uses electricity to pump it into your car to ultimately be burnt. But even just looking at the emissions from the tail pipe compared to EV’s emissions from powerplants EV’s are drastically cleaner, yet alone all the other impacts that occur just getting the fuel.
And then there is the impact of looking for and extracting the oil. Fracking for oil. The impact and the environment that has. Drilling for oil. The impact that has on the ocean floor even before we look at the countless oil rig disasters there have been that has spilled countless barrels of oil into the ocean causing a marine genocide. Many of which aren’t even reported in the news. There have been over 50 in the last 10 years alone. That’s more than 5 per year.
But sure. It’s EV’s that are dirty. Because mining lithium in the Australian outback with some of the harshest environmental laws on the planet. Even when you’re getting it from a place so barren and deserted of life that plants don’t even grow there. Even thought you only need a little lithium for a battery that lasts longer than the lifespan of a typical ICE engine. And when all is said and done, is entirely recyclables from that battery to be used in another battery.
Sure. Why not. Logical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenbrown5921 i'm sorry if all that seems a bit intense, but I don't understand hanging onto a technology which is out dated and is literally slowly killing you.
I own an EV. I'm not saying everyone should have one, or that they're suitable for everyone or every application. I'm not saying we should ban new cars or ban fossil fuels. I dont want any of that. But i do want all these bullshit myths about EV's and renewables to stop being spread out of fear of something people dont understand.
for example you've probably heard that EV"s are a fire hazard. thats false, according to the beuro of statistics, the AANCAP safety board, European NCAP safety board, the US highway traffic and safety Authority, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likey to combust in a serious accident and when they do combust are usually more survivable.
you've probably also heard that EV's have a short life, also false, EV's on the road today have already started punching more than 500,000 miles (800,000km) without any real servicing what so ever. and one has even gone over 1 million miles. They are designed and generally accepted by the Engineering community to last at least twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine.
you've probably heard that the SA big battery cant power adelaide for very long therefore its a waste of money? thats false, that was something started by our dear primeminster who would have had a report telling him that, that is exactly NOT what the battery is designed to do.
When wind and solar are over performing for grid demand they have to be shut down, wasting all that every. Similarly when they're under performing but still performing. its called curtailment. Batteries absorbe the excess energy when they're over performing and deposit what they're short for when they're under performing. making renewables more efficient and more reliable.
ontop of that unlike coal or gas, which have a response time of 5-12 seconds. the Big battery has a response time of just a few nano seconds. that means it can respond to fluctuations in the grid much faster making it far far FAR more stable. Infact in the last 3 major events which either blacked out NSW and VIC or sent them into rolling blackouts, SA was unaffected because the Big Battery regulated the grid frequency fast enough to prevent it from ripping the other generators out of phase and off the grid.
Here is another one. Renewables are unreliable. You've heard that one right? makes sense, sun doesnt always shine, wind doesnt always blow. However when you have a gird with minimal storage, and diversified renewables, the grids actually become more stable. Whilst it may not be windy in one location, if you go 50km, you'll likely find somewhere the wind IS blowing. Again, Australia is a large place, only extremely large weather systems overcast entire states, distributing solar over many areas helps to stablalize their output. and when you have wind AND solar both distributed across large areas you start to get something very consistent. If its overcast one place, its usually windy. If there is no wind in another place, its likely sunny.
Renewables have had such an impact that SA which used to have the most unreliable grid in Australia, invested in renewables and storage and according to the AEMO are now one of the most stable gird in Australia. They also went from being the most expensive wholesale energy prices in Australia to being the second cheapest wholesale prices right being Tasmania as number 1. and all that with 70% renewables.
and its not just SA. Germany has alot of renewables. And now they have one of the most stable power grid in the world, somewhere in the top 5 last I checked. They also have some of the cheapest wholesale energy prices in the EU.
But here comes another myth. Germany retail energy prices are very high, some of the highest in the EU. so people blame that on renewables. In reality renewables have driven down the WHOLESALE price of electricty. The government then adds a 44% tariff the that whole sale price to make the retail price very very expensive.
Its not renewables making Germany's power expensive. its government taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you havnt thought this through have you? firstly, Modern EV batteries have warranties starting at around the 8 year mark. A battery life span is considered to 80% health (20% degradation). Modern EV batteries are design and are showing to last up to and over 500,000 miles to a lifespan. More than that of a combustion engine.
Next, turns out its more pragmatic to charge from home every evening whilst you're asleep than to drive around to a fuel station to refuel. Turns out this saves the average person 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel! so its actually extremely practical by comparison. You can even charge your EV from your home rooftop solar panels or a small portable generator if you wanted to, neither of which you could do with hydrogen.
As for infrastructure, for electric, the jobs already done. Everyone has electricity. For hydrogen, no. the job isnt half way there. to put in a single hydrogen pump at a fuel station it would cost around $1.2 million. whilst to put in a bank of 4 super chargers it costs $200k. 6 times less. It can also be installed without disrupting and temporarily closing the fuel station for several weeks, unlike installing a hydrogen pump which needs storage tanks underground.
So no, Job isnt half completed, it's not even 1% completed. and no, BEV's turn out to be the more practical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@electro1622 Unfortunately, whilst you can create hydrogen from as little as 1 watt of electricity, it doesn't generate very quickly. Lets take, for example a 200kW electrolyser such as the one installed in Melbourne Australia.
That 200kW electrolyser will use, over 24 hours, 4,800 kWh of electricity from the grid. It also is so large it takes up a large portion of a factory. Over that 24 hour period it will only produce approximately 80kg of hydrogen. which is enough to fill up to 14 Hydrogen Toyota Mirai's. not alot. Now lets image in you have 8 solar panels which would produce around 5 kW of electricity. Lets say its a summer day and there are no clouds, and the sun is out for around 14 hours. Due to the changing angle of the sun, the total power output would be approximately 60% of the total daylight hours so an equivalent to 8.5 hours of sunlight.
5kWh over 8.5 hours will give you 42.5 kWh. If we assume the same efficiency as the factory sized hydrogen plant, we would produce 0.71 kg of hydrogen. But we also need some of that electricity to compress the hydrogen to 700 bar to get it into the fuel tanks. Thats appoximately 85% efficient, so we've actually only made and compressed 0.6kg of hydrogen with our 5kw solar panel array.
To get a full tanks worth hydrogen for a Mirai that would mean you'd need 9.3 clear sunny summer days to get enough hydrogen. Not exactly expedient or practical.
Now if we collected 42.5kWh of electricity into a BEV of a similar size and range, we'd have charged the car approximately 43% which would represent 177.5 miles worth of driving (much more than your regular daily commute).
Meanwhile 0.6kg of hydrogen would get you 43 miles of driving. Which is lower than your average daily commute at 70 miles.
So all in all, home hydrogen production is not very practical. even before you consider the space require to store the hydrogen, the equipment to make the hydrogen via electrolysis and then the super heavy duty compressor require to compress it to 700 bar (100 times higher pressure than a typical home compressor unit).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@electro1622 actually there is more than infrastructure holding hydrogen back.
1.) they don’t last as long. Having to buy a new car every 5-10 years without even being able to sell it second hand is costly and not green.
2.) hydrogen has low power output. Meaning they’re typically slow.
3.) they’re expensive. The cost of fuel is 20x more expensive than charging a BEV
4.) you have to go to fuel stations whilst BEV’s can be charged from home. On average this means you waste 16-17 hours per year getting fuel which you would save by charging a BEV at home.
5.) practicality. Hydrogen is lightweight, but the drawback is it takes up ALOT of volume, with significantly less than half the volumetric energy density of batteries hydrogen cars suffer from a distinct lack of cabin and cargo space. For example the mirai, despite being bigger than say the model 3, has so little cabin space you can’t actually fold the rear seats which is a biggy since it’s boot is so small it’s almost a full 100L smaller than that of a a Toyota Yaris half it’s size whilst the model 3 has generous amount a of both with folding seats.
6.) range. Hydrogen actually doesn’t get much further than comparable BEV’s and sometimes less. The Mirai is around the same size as a Tesla Model S, but gets 402 miles whilst the Tesla gets 412. But due to space restrictions you can’t actually fit more fuel into hydrogen cars whilst battery technology continues to improve along its S curve.
So, in summary, not only is infrastructure an issue, the fuel is a huge waste of electricity to make, they don’t last nearly as long, theyre slow, expensive to operate, have impractically small amount of space and all for similar or less range.
Hydrogen just isn’t a good solution for cars. There is a reason they’re called fool cells
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RicardoPicena the issue is that even if my calculations are wrong, the end result is not. Thermodynamics second law of energy states that there is an upper efficiency limit to everything. You are effectively using electricity to split water into hydrogen then recombing hydrogen into water to generate electricity. Its a round trip, like plugging a power board into itself. water to hydrogen to water again, to hydrogen to water, so on and so forth. If you had 100% efficiency, you would see absolutely no benefit from the motor. But there are losses, there are losses in the electrical generation, in the heat light and sound lost to combustion, in the energy required to split the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. Even the belts to transfer the mechanical energy from the crank to the alternator would have approximately a 15% loss.
Nothing is 100% efficient. So you cant split water into hydrogen and oxygen to then get MORE energy by recombining it with oxygen to make water again.
That wold be like plugging a power board into itself and getting unlimited electricity.
Because thats what would be required. you could infinately collect the water you're making, and split that with the excess energy and use even more energy again to drive the car.
It doesnt work like that. It violates the fundamental laws of physics. If you had hydrogen on its own and burnt it, then yes, but to then make hydrogen on board means the complete energy cycle is within the car. Its just going to waste energy.
water to hydrogen to water. Like cable to powerboard back to cable. It cannot work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jammiedodger7040 yeah no. thats not how that works. Lets break it down.
1.) Hydrogen can be used to replace gas. But it wont be as green. Because hydrogen does not occur in its pure state naturally. you have to extract it from exclusively lower energy dense sources. Meaning it requires ALOT of energy. more than you get out of it. That energy comes from somewhere.
2.) It cant replace diesel. Firstly, hydrogen needs a spark for ignition. A modified diesel engine cannot run on hydrogen. A modified petrol engine can. But I wouldn't do that as hydrogen embrittles metals. unlike fuels its also not oil based so it will dry out the lubricated surfaces. Ultimately leading to significantly early failure of the engine. and for diesel to work significant modifications will need to be made for it to ignite. Including increasing the compression ratio to that of engines for freight trains and cargo ships, and reinforcing the pistons for explosive shock.
3.) Hydrogen combustion is not highly efficient. like most spark initiated combustion engines, they achieve around 20% efficiency for even a purpose built engine. yet alone modified petrol engine. If you want efficiency, you'll have to settle for a fuel cell which is 60% efficient at best, but in practice in vehicles it gets closer to 40%.
4.) Whilst you can fill up in minutes, you cannot charge from home. You have to find somewhere that HAS hydrogen first. Which is to say.. difficult. whilst you can get electricity pretty much everywhere. But as it is, having an BEV saves the average person around 16-17 hours per year from getting fuel from a fuel station. The same can be said for hydrogen.
5.) Whilst the fuel tanks dont get smaller over time, fuel cells dont last as long as batteries. Infact, according to Toyota and Hyundai, Fuel cells typically last 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV. As they degrade, not only do they use more fuel per km, whilst unlike BEV's means you're paying more per mile, they also reduce power output as they get older, again, something a BEV doesnt suffer from.
6.) Whilst hydrogen is light weight, You cant store alot of it because it takes up SO MUCH VOLUME Which means your races wont be very long, especially with combustion. But also, This means hydrogen wont have a high power out. either for a fuel cell or combustion. Infact the reason fuel cell cars have Lithium battery packs is because the fuel cell cannot provide enough fuel to adequately accelerate the car. Meaning you wont be doing any tracks days any time soon.
In fact, Toyota's mirai only goes 0-60 in 9.2s whilst the similarly sized Tesla model S does it in less than 2 seconds. Toyotoa even put a hydrogen combustion engine into a corrola and sent to to a track day where it averaged a disappointing 45km/h and had to refuel after a disappointingly short 50km on average.
Sorry but no.
1
-
1
-
@jammiedodger7040 firstly, combustion of any kind is far less efficient than electric motors which sit up around the 97% efficiency mark. That’s how hybrids get such good fuel economy, they drive an electric motor, not drive their combustion engine through gears to the wheels.
Second, EV’s don’t increase wear on tires. That’s a myth. Saying that EV’s chew through tires because they have the extra weight of a battery is a little like saying someone with a large SUV also chews through tires even more because of its extra weight over current model EV’s. That’s not what happens. Additionally EV’s aren’t much heavier if at all with other vehicles in its size and class category, on account of NOT having massive steel engine blocks and transmissions.
Third. Why the hell do you think hydrogen doesn’t produce emissions to make? Green hydrogen uses 4x more electricity per mile than BEV’s do to charge their battery per mile. Surprise surprise they get that electricity from the grid. If you are going to argue that it’s greener because hydrogen production could use renewables. I got news for you. So can Battery Electrics, except they need 4x less renewables to be built to get just as far and unlike hydrogen, can also be charged from home solar.
Environmentally friendly coal still produces emissions. Coal is a hydrocarbon. Meaning it’s made of a hydrogen carbon chain. When you burn it, the hydrogen is released as energy and combusts and you’re left with oxidised carbon. I.e. carbon dioxide. So no, that ain’t green either.
And lastly, on hydrogen production. Whilst green hydrogen is a neat thing to idealise, unfortunately, it’s very VERY slow to produce, even in a huge plant. An entire car factory in Melbourne was refitted to produce green hydrogen. An entire old car assembly line. And it still only produces enough hydrogen to fill 14 mirais over 24 hours straight production. So if it operated 24/7 and you only had to fill your hydrogen car once per week. That entire factory sized hydrogen production plant could only produce enough hydrogen to supply just under 100 mirais in Melbourne. Using the same grid electricity that would charge 400 battery electric cars over the same distance. So how would you figure you could supply enough hydrogen for 1 million cars? Or 10 million cars. Or what about just the US, with 360 million drivers? You can’t.
Which Leads me to my final point, if you can’t use purely green hydrogen, what do you use? Grey and brown hydrogen. Which use hydrocarbons. They separate the hydro, from the carbon to produce hydrogen. I.e made from fossil fuels like gas, coal and oil in a process that produces MORE EMISSIONS THAN IF YOU HAD JUST BURNT IT FOR FUEL IN THE FIRST PLACE
Take gas steam reformation for example. You burn the gas, release carbon, to creat steam. That steam then reacts with more gas to produce hydrogen, releasing more carbon. That’s way more carbon than if you had just put that gas in an ICE car to begin with as LPG.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You do have to remember that pretty much the only people using a super charger are only those who happened to be doing road trips well past their daily commute drives (represents 0.01% of the population at any given time) and only those of whom happen to be in the same area as you at the time they need to charge.
Second it’s worth noting that super chargers charge at up to 250kW. Which means if you were there for 30 minutes and you had a super long range 100KWh battery you’d charge 125% of your batteries charge. Super charging only takes between 10-15 minutes typically because you don’t roll in on your very last electron, typically at around 20-30% charge left. And you typically only charge to 90%. Meaning you’d only need to charge your battery between 60-70% or less. Which at 250kW from a super charger would take 10-15 minutes if you had a 100kWh battery pack. But for context a Tesla model Y long range has a 75kWh battery pack. So it would take even less again.
No one is suggesting an over night swap to electrics. Even if every automaker on the plantet switched to EV’s for all its car models, and made them and sold them in the same production numbers they do today, and even if then everyone purchased those cars being made faster than the automakers can manufacture them, it would still take well over 30 years before we get close to 100% EV adoption. This is going to be a very VERY slow process.
Most modern apartment blocks have secure parking garages with. Well you guessed it, electricity for lights and power points for cleaners etc. most people who get EV’s in these situations just as the body corporate to either install a charger or simply install a closer PowerPoint for them to charge from.
We adapt. We have plenty of time to do so.
Lastly, second hand EV’s are valuable. Infact the Tesla model 3, even before the covid supply shortages, has the lowest 5 year depreciation of any car ever measured. Partly due to the fact that despite common misconceptions, EV batteries actually last longer than ICE engines.
If you think there isn’t a hunger in the market for secondhand EV’s, then you REALLY havn’t been paying attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tesla wont likely go to fuel cells. For the above reason, adding hydrogen to an electric car just makes it worse. Not better, in almost every single way. Infact, BEV's have only been around for about 2-4 years longer than FCEV's which in the scale of things is next to nothing. over that time, BEV's have exploded with multiple models from almost every auto manufacturer and every year we are seeing more BEV options entering the market.
FCEV's however.... as of 2020, there were 3 models to chose from after nearly a decade of development and market exposure. After significantly more government and private investment and after significantly more advertisement than BEV's got. 3 models. The Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity and Hyundai Nexo.
But here's the kick, as of 2021, there are now 2 options on the market as the Honda Clarity was discontinued in 2021. Far from being the future it appears to be in severe decline with a whopping 1/3rd of FCEV's market offering being discontinued. Meanwhile Toyota has announced 9 new BEV models for 2022, Honda are rumoured to be announcing several new BEV models in 2022 as they have committed to 2/3rds EV sales within 10 years and Hyundai having 5 BEV models with more rumoured for 2022.
I dont know why people still think hydrogen is the future, its almost entirely faded into obscurity at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OZZYxcon_GTSR1000hp actually in a lot of cases, grid stabilising is typically because the grid is equipped to handle the quantity of rooftop solar being fed into the grid despite the AEMO warning the government about this emerging trend for the last decade. Due to frequency response, taking large energy sinks offline helps the grid to stabilise the frequency of older stations. Also it might be worth noting that over the last few months, older generators have been intermittantly taken offline for repair and schedule maintenance, however power companies don't often communicate when their repairs and refurbishment are going to occur with other power stations, as such an unusually high number of power stations have been shutting down after the summer peak for repair and refurbishment. However that might just be Victoria. It really depends where you are and where you live, as local conditions can also have a large impact on stability such as how many other power users are tapped into the same transfer station for example. If you're in an industrial area, the frequency at which the frequency needs to be modified to remain stable can be more, if other industrial processes are occuring nearby.
an anecdotal tale about how a single smelting plant observed is operated, while interesting, isn't very representative of a nation or even state grid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schopen-hauer Well dude to the flow through required for the fuel cell it wont ever be much more than 60% efficient. Additionally, you cant make hydrogen production more than 70-80 efficient due to the energy required to break the chemical bonds to release it even under perfect circumstances. So it is always going to require far more energy from the very same grid that charges BEV's per mile. Which makes it far more expensive per mile. to drive by comparison. In addition you arent just paying for the electricity to produce hydrogen. You're also paying for transport, the capital cost of the equipment which produces the hydrogen, the water or carrier, the profit markup, logistics, staffing, admin costs of the production plant and the profit markup ONTOP of that from the fuel station which provides it. Meaning it is always going to cost SIGNIFICANTLY more to operate.
Then there are the practicalities of hydrogen. Whilst hydrogen is extremely light, people neglect that it takes up ALOT of volume. The Toyota Mirai carries only 5.6 kg of hydrogen but that small amount (only enough to get it about as far as a comparative BEV currently) takes up a whopping 146L of fuel tanks. Thats more volume than a Ford F150 over double it size. But it also needs a fuel cell taking up the entire engine bay plus a Lithium battery (because fuel cells are low power output by nature. Hydrogen cars are very slow typically). That means you have significantly less cabin space and cargo space than even a comparative ICE vehicle yet alone a BEV. The practical Volumetric energy density of hydrogen is less than half that of batteries. The Mirai has a smaller boot, by almost 100L, than a Toyota Yarris half its size.
We've already mentioned that they cant achieve the same speeds easily. The only hydrogen car that does achieve those speeds, is a purpose built, multi-milion dollar 2 door, 2 seat, no boot performance concept car. And it still has slower acceleration than a Tesla Model S which is a fully functioning 4 door, 5 seat TWIN BOOT large luxury family sedan.
Then there is the lifespan. Fuel cells dont last very long, neither do the fuel tanks and the surrounding structure because of hydrogen embrittlement. Fuel cells only last approximately 100,000 to 150,000 miles or 10-15 years (FCEV's come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps). Whilst (contrary to popular belief) Battery Electric cars have the longest expected lifespan of any powertrain on the market, with modern batteries expected to and are showing signs of lasting up to and over 500,000 miles.
As for the market. BEV's have exploded in recent years. Toyota recently announce some 30 odd new BEV models to hit the market in 2022, and making advancements in solid state batteries and almost every single auto maker is now offering at least 1 BEV option. Meanwhile, Toyota has only 1 hydrogen car offering. and has only ever had 1 hydrogen car offering. Infact there were only 3 options for hydrogen cars on the market up until recently... why Honda pulled out of hydrogen. So now there is only 2. Its reducing, not expanding. and as for development of technology? Not really. The Mirai was the first mass produced FCEV on the market. Since its initial release, its only gained around 20% more range. Its done this by increasing fuel capacity by around 14%, increase its aerodynamics by another 14%, reducing rolling resistance with modern hyper efficient tires by around 7%, and reducing the weight of the 1.6kWh Lithium battery by about 50%. It still has the same acceleration, and space compromises. In effect, the fuel cell system has not improve any, or if it has, marginally, over the last 7 years. BEV's over the last 9 have improved drastically.
So the market for hydrogen is shrinking, the infrastructure never took off, because the cars are slower, more expensive to operate, more limited in refuelling, and less practical in terms of both cabin and boot space and have one of the shortest lifespans of any type of car on the road.
Hydrogen cars are not the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well the lithium is only used once per car unlike fuel which is drilled for every km driven for every car and it’s also entirely recyclable once the car is spent.
As for advantages, EV are safer, have typically better performance, provide smoother driving experience, better handling, more cargo/cabin space, have better features native to large batteries such as app connectivity allowing for you to turn your aircon and heated seats on, unlock and let people drive without a key from anywhere in the world, always on security cameras capturing 360 high definition footage, being able to run the aircon while children or animals are in the car.
They also cost less to drive per km, by as much as 10x less and require zero regular maintenance.
So there are a lot of benefits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DerekVuong7799 The battery longevity of plug in hybrids isnt born out of how deep the cycles are, is the cycle size.
Modern EV Batteries have a cycle life of 1,500 cycles (which by the way, a life is classed as degradation to 70% of their original capacity). So for an EV which has a large battery representing 325 miles of range. over 1,500 cycles, that's nearly 500,000 miles.
however a plug in hybrid has significantly less battery storage than an EV. The wheels are also driven entirely from the battery of the hybrid, not from the generator directly. This means that it can only go 25 miles to a cycle. 1,500 multiplied by 25 miles is 37,000 miles which is 60,000 miles.
Most people however dont notice this. As for 1) the is at 70% health still. The battery range is now 17 miles (28km). and 2) because they still have a motor on board which turns on to keep the battery on charge. Together that means that the effects are mostly of battery degradation, from the drivers perspective, is negligible. but its still happening faster than an EV. You cant outrun physics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia is well aware that they dont stand a chance is hell against NATO in a conventional war due to technology, fire-power, range, training, experience or logistics. That is why they rely so heavily on Nuclear threats rather than conventional arms. They have more nukes.
Further to that, unfortunately, the only place Russia has the technological edge, is in nuclear warefare. Russia is one of the few countries that have hypersonic ballistic missile delivery systems for their nukes. The US and NATO do not. Further more, hypersonic missiles are so new to the scene that at current NATO and the US dont have any defences for them developed yet. (some in development but haven't even reached prototype phase). The problem is that these missiles move so fast that they create a plasma shockwave infront of the missile, making it nearly impossible to detect and track. And even if you could detect and track the missile, current missile defence systems which rely on firing smaller, more manoeuvrable missiles at the nukes, aren't fast enough to intercept them effectively.
So the reason NATO is so hesitant to test Russia's nuclear threat is because at current, they have a delivery system which they cannot counter or defend against. Its not a coincidence that Russia's full invasion of Ukraine, after Crimea, came after their announcement of their hypersonic missiles with test footage. for the first time since the cold war, Russia has an advantage it can press NATO with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rjd72577 oh, sweet naïve summer child. Sorry but no. 3 things to point out.
1.) Most even manufactures, Tesla included, have ethical sourcing agreements for their cobalt (which is what you are referring to since most Lithium comes from Australia. And cobalt has been criticized for child labour)
2.) Modern EV batteries such as the Tesla 4680 batteries rolling out on 2022 models dont use any cobalt at all
3.) whilst EV's are the largest consumer of pure refined cobalt, they are not the largest consumer of cobalt by mass which means not only pure cobalt, but cobalt based compounds, chemicals and alloys. No, by kg of cobalt, (i.e. by mass*) the largest consumer of cobalt are *FUEL REFINERIES which use cobalt based chemicals to remove sulphur from every gallon of fuel your burn in your car every day. Not only that by fuel refineries have never received the public pressure that EV's have on their use of cobalt meaning they have no ethical sourcing agreements
Couple the child mining of cobalt for sulphur reduction with the fact that most of the wars in modern history have been started in one way or another over oil resulting in the accumulative deaths of millions of people, mostly civilians and ecological disasters such as the deep water horizons or the BP oil spill incidents bringing once thriving eco-systems to the brink of collapse and extinction,
It would probably be more appropriate to call petrol and diesel blood oil rather than calling EV's "blood batteries"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larsejgaardbissenbackerjrg6575 you can’t run a diesel on vodka. But even if you could, it would burn out the seals and tank the engine due to the sugar content.
EV’s today last much longer than combustion engines. Addition you don’t have to service them at all. Tesla’s having no mandatory services for the lifetime of the vehicle. That’s because the electric motor is a self contained unit rated to last 1 million miles. EV’s also don’t have a gearbox to service and maintain. and the batteries too are self contained unit rated to last around 500,000 miles to 70% health. Meanwhile diesel average a lifespan between 250,000 miles to 300,000 miles and only with persistent and regular maintenances on the vehicle including oil changes, belt changes, replacement parts, fuel pumps, engine bushing, filters, etc etc etc.
And yes, it’s far more fuel efficient to run a Tesla on a diesel generator than to use that same diesel in a car. Even an efficient one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlacXtar32 I dont think you understand the balance of issues here. Firstly whilst production of Hydrogen isnt efficient, Running hydrogen through a fuel cell to create electricity is even less efficient. Hydrogen production is approximately 70-75% efficient peak, whilst fuel cells are between 40-60% efficient peak.
As for the Hyperion XP-1, you are look at a vehicle is has no boot, is very large, is only a 2 door 2 seat vehicle. Compare this to the Model S plaid. The plaid is faster, smaller, and is a 4 door luxury family sedan with a generous boot at the front and the back, and would most like be 1/10th the price of the Hyperion XP-1.
Hydrogen is very gravimetrically energy dense. And its certainly volumetrically energy dense when compressed to 700 bar. However here is the problem. It has to be stored in round fuel tanks. This actually makes its volumetric energy density less than Battery Electrics by 1/4th. Due to the fact that the tanks need to be round to hold the pressure they do, meaning there isnt anywhere convenient to put them that you dont waste alot of space. What this means is that whilst hydrogen cars like the Mirai carry only 5.6kg of fuel to travel 400 miles. it takes up a whopping 149L of fuel tank space. thats well and truely more fuel tank capacity in a relatively tiny Mid-sized sedan than you'd find in an F150 more than twice its size!
Another thing to consider is that Hydrogen vehicles actually weigh more than Battery Electrics. The Model 3 and the Mirai are both similar sizes and are both in the mid-sized sedan size class. The Tesla is around 1,847kg whist the Mirai is around 1900kg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlacXtar32 I am a Mechanical Engineer yes. There are many reason hydrogen are worse than BEV’s. Of course they’d have their use cases but I pitty those people.
As noted before the Mirai could not have bigger batteries on board as it does not have the space. Hydrogen cars are heavier, they cost far more per mile, have very little cabin and cargo space and are slower than BEV’s all because of physical restraints in dealing with hydrogen.
So let’s compare two similar vehicles, one hydrogen and one BEV.
Model 3, range: 325 miles
Mirai, range: 400 miles (only 75 miles more)
Model 3, 0-60: 3.2s
Mirai, 0-50, 9.2s
Model 3, much cheaper per mile operation
Mirai, very expensive per mile operation
Model 3, near class leading cabin space. Rear seats fold.
Mirai, not even enough space to fold the rear seats
Model 3, class leading boot space with front trunk.
Mirai, less boot space than a car half it’s size and no front trunk.
Model 3, battery life to 70% health estimated 500,000 miles (30-40 years of driving for the average person)
Mirai, comes off the assembly line with an expiration date limiting the life to only 10 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bassmanjr100 well the average rootop area of the US per home is 54 m2. There are 10.94 million homes in Texas, which means there is a potential for 629 million m2 of rooftop area for solar panels at the average power production of 1kWh per m2, that's 629 GW potential just from rootop solar. Texa's power demand is only 41.7 GW. Lets presume a utilisation factor of 30% due to night times, cloud cover, winter, etc, that 629 GW becomes 188.7 GW of power. More than enough to supply Texas. The only problem now is that its not generating during night time you'd need some 14 hours of storage for any power that cannot be covered by sources such as wind, or geothermal. Pumped hydro and kinetic energy storage are 2 solutions which have the capacity to fill this need.
Moving on to Nuclear, whilst nuclear is a clean energy, it isnt. Nuclear produces tons of radioactive waste with in low level or high level waste. At current we have no real way to deal with this waste other than to bury it, and at current we have no where to bury it so its sitting in warehouses in containers which will eventually erode. If you think that is a sustainable solution then please look a little harder. Additionally it takes almost and sometimes more than a decade to build nuclear power plants, Installing rooftop solar takes a day or 2. a solar far can be installed in months, wind farms can be installed in a a year or 2. Timing is another factor as we rapidly approach a climate tipping point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this analysis is flawed, buy in large EV’s are still more green than hybrids but that’s not the big considering I have in mind. But I’ll get to that in a second. A new type of lithium plant is currently being built in Nevada which would extent lithium from clay. If it’s successful, that means there is now enough available lithium in Nevada to fuel the needs of. The EV industry for better half of the next century. Additionally, lithium in batteries are recyclable, fuel in cars are not, and we are fast approaching a point where we no longer have oil for fuel. Also EV’s aren’t much heavier than their competitors. Keep in mind most of the time they compare luxury EV’s against standard economy cars. Not factoring the luxury features which take up weight. For example. The model 3 is in the mid-sized luxury sedan category (not even the same size class as a Corolla btw). Also in the mid-sized luxury sedan category is the BMW 5 series and the Audi A6 Quattro. Both with similar performance and features as the model 3. The BMW weighs 1900kg, the Audi is 1990kg and the Tesla is 1850kg. The lightest of the 3. Batteries are heavy but you also don’t have an engine or transmission which are the 2 heaviest parts of an ICE.
But the number 1 thing I think you havn’t considered is lifespan. Hybrids do use lithium batteries. But batteries life is dependent on cycle life. How many cycles it can do. A Tesla battery with all its battery management systems to maintain the batteries within optimal operating conditions have a cycle life currently of 1,500 cycles. With a range per cycle of 325 mile that means it had a lifespan of nearly 500,000 miles.
A plug in hybrid cannot fit all those battery management systems in there and they almost exclusively don’t even bother with hybrids. This gives them a cycle life of 500 cycles on average. With a range of around 20 miles for plug in hybrids on the battery, that gives it a lifespan of 10,000 miles of battery driving to a lifespan. So you’d have to keep replacing the batteries in the hybrids and for a lot of people, it would be cheaper just to buy a new car. So sure, you could make 10 hybrids with 1 EV battery, but you’d have to build around 50 hybrids to keep up with 1 lifespan of a BEV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tyguyborgerding Its actually the other way around. The larger you scale your renewables the more dependable they are. That statement doesnt come without its own technicalities, for example capacitance at a grid level to prevent curtailment would be required. But diversification in location as well as source both greatly increase the stability of renewables. On a local level you will be struggling to do either.
That being said, renewables arent like fossil fuels or nuclear. You cant just build one, plug it into the grid and walk away. Renewables are very complicated to implement correctly. But the bennefits are significant. Cheaper energy, less emissions, less building materials, faster construction, and more significantly but least talked about, better response times, especially with some form of capacitance. A VPP can respond to grid demand within nanoseconds, so can solar and battery. On the other hand, it takes traditional power plants in the order of 5-10 seconds depending on their design. That means a sudden shift such as a shortage, earthing event, lightning strike, or other forms of failure, are significantly less likely to results in a blackout or brownout as the frequency can be stabilized within nanoseconds prevent cascading events.
Thats why South Australia went from the worst least stable grid in Australia, to being the most stable grid in Australia just by investing in renewables. thats also why Germany is in the top 10 most stable grid in the world (national grids) with far less blackout or brownout events than most other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
making hydrogen is not pollution free. far from it. In general, Hydrogen cars are more pollutive than BEV's. They also have worse range than BEV's due to their restrictions in volume (because hydrogen takes up so much volume) and they are worse in low temperatures. (if you havnt noticed, hydrogen releases water as a byproduct. what happens to water when its below freezing?)
Diesel is not more efficient than electric. unfortunately its more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a cheap portable diesel generator than it is to use that same diesel in a even a modern diesel engine. The reason people prefer electric over hydrogen is because battery electric cars offer a better car in almost every aspect. convenience, range, lifespan, cost of operation, greener, safety, cabin space, boot space. etc etc etc.
you dont collect hydrogen from the atmosphere. its almost non existent unless you get to the very upper and outer reaches of our atmosphere, well above the Karmen line. We get our hydrogen from fossil fuels or water. (mostly fossil fuels) so all we'd be doing is release more hydrogen into the atmosphere from leakages. not removing hydrogen from the atmosphere. In addition, creating hydrogen from fossil fuels produces more emissions than if you had just burnt that as fuel in the first place. And unfortunately its the only currently feasible way to run a large scale hydrogen economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solarcookingTravel you mean “accept” additionally, there is no free energy. You can’t make something out of nothing. Never have and never will. You don’t have to look far to start unraveling Stan’s BS parade. Aside from the convictions of fraud, he claimed he was a certified masters in Engineering from an Ivey league school. Except those schools have no record of him ever attending and he does not appear in any group graduation photos. Meaning he lied. He only has a high school education. He claimed he was hired by the pentagon to study alien spaceships. Which, firstly, fat chance, secondly, I’m
Sure the pentagon had some more qualified people than someone who’s never achieved more than a high school educations.
He also claimed his car worked on “resonance” of water. The resonant frequency of water changes depending on the water, it’s solution, impurities, current pressure (atmospheric pressure shifts) and temperature. Meaning it’s resonance is constantly on a state of flux. So there is no set frequency.
Second he stated this used less energy. That’s a lie. There is a minimum amount of energy required to break a chemical bond just like there is a minimum required energy to break a stick of chalk. All resonance does is store energy in a wave. If you pushed a water wave at a stick of chalk to break it. If you kept adding energy at a resonant frequency, the chalk would break at the time by which those incremental increases of energy input into the wave accumulated in a wave powerful enough to exert that minimal required force.
Similar with chemical bonds. Resonance isn’t a get out of jail free card. There is a minimum required energy. That bond is only going to break with waves, at the time that you impart enough energy into it to break it. The energy required to break it doesn’t change.
It’s VERRRRRRRRY basic physics.
Plugging a power board into itself doesn’t give you unlimited energy. It’s time you accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kupasotomotif Actually not true. BEV's dont cost much more than their counterparts. Take the BMW M3 and the Model 3 for example. The model 3 performance is around $30K AUD cheaper than the BMW. Keep in mind that BEV's arent incentivised in Australia. They're taxed. But you get better performance, features and handling than a M3 with the Tesla. Plus operational costs are significantly cheaper both in maintenance overheads and fuel savings.
As for the second part of your comment. What a ridiculous thing to say. Whilst the statement is true. Everyone wont suddenly own an EV tomorrow. At current EV adoption is fairly full pelt. There are wait lists for model 3's and other EV's as much as 9-14 months long. So even if everyone suddenly decided to buy one, they wouldn't be coming out any faster. But to give context to that, at current, the total number of EV's Ever produced worldwide is 6.5 million cars. With that many cars you could arm only less than 2% of the USA with EV's. But keep in mind, that number is global. So whilst the statement is correct. its not reflective of reality. The transition will happen slowly, over multiple decades, They're expected that ICE vehicles will begin to leave the second hand market in 40-50 years. I'll be retired before that happens. Keep in mind that the energy grid has never fail to double in capacity every 20 years since its inception. The energy grid in almost every country has always continued to increase as the demand for electricity has always continued to increase. more lights, more tv's, more phones, more tables, more computers, laptops, smart watches smart washers, dish washers, electric kettles, refrigerators. yada yada yada. So as we gradually move towards further EV adoption the grid will gradually be built to cope. thats how the world works.
Presenting an unrealistic and impossible scenario to justify turning away from EV's is misleading and illogical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kupasotomotif well no. The difference between the cheapest models of a manufacture isnt a good comparison either. As they'd be vastly different in size, performance and luxury features. Hence why I compared the Tesla Model 3 to the BMW M3, because they have similar specs, they are in the same size class and are both in the luxury vehicle category. But as I pointed out the BMW costs more than the model 3 despite having slightly worse performance.
You could argue that you could compare two of the same car models but one being an EV and the other an ICE like the golf which has a petrol, diesel and EV range. however this is also not a great comparison because its not a true EV. I say that because its an electric motor and battery jammed into a combustion car chassis. The car, body and interior is built from the ground up for combustion engines. Not for being an EV which require fundamentally different design criteria. For example you wont easily get a combustion engine and transmission and exhaust into a Tesla. you'd have to give it a tiny motor, and limit the transmission size among other things.
now for your main comment I promised to respond to.
1.) you dont typically take into account unexpected breakdown into the cost of ownership projection. however EV's do breakdown far less than ICE vehicles on account of having only a few hundred moving parts, instead of a few hundred thousand moving parts like an ICE vehicle has.
2.) the transition you are talking about will take some 50 years or more. that isnt sudden by any metric and is more than enough time for the grid to keep up.
3.) Because Australian media is almost exclusively owned by mining companies, politicians bought out by mining companies or Murdoch media. so much so that it even took a ground breaking record social push for the government to instigate a royal commission into media bias and monopolies. Keep in mind that Australia's EV ownership is still less than 2% and before 2021, it was less than 1%. So the first headline is fear mongering. There have been no blackouts in Australia linked to EV's or any instance where the grid hasnt been able to produce enough energy aside from natural disasters and massive breakdowns of key powerplants. So no.
4.) There are some misleading parts of the interview. For starters, it would infact take 2 days to charge a long range model 3 form a wall point. However there are two things to note here.
A.) He notes that its 0-100%. unless he's rolling into his driveway on his very last electron then he wont be going from 0%. additionally that for him to drive from 100% to 0% requiring him to charge that much, he would need to be travelling the full range of the vehicle. which is around 560km. So unless he's doing 6 hours + of freeway driving per day, I dont think he needs to charge 0-100%. I actually own a model 3 and I charge from the wall outlet. It takes roughly 7 hours to charge from a wall outlet for the 120km I drive each day when I am home between my 8 hour works shifts for around 14 hours. Which is more than enough time to charge before I get up in the morning to start again.
B.) he did note it was from a wall outlet. Tesla along with most other EV's actually come with their own home chargers you need to install for level 2 charging. Which means he would be able to fully charge his EV at home from 0-100% in 4 hours. However it costs around $200-$300 to install the home charger that comes with the car. And whilst the device can be installed and used outdoors, some people like myself who are renting, or living in apartments with communal parking, might have trouble installing their home chargers. (I was renting I just moved into my new house and I havnt gotten around to installing mine yet.)
5.) you maths on the power is bad. Australian homes operate nominally around 240V by 10A for outlet power. Home chargers operate at between 16-32 amps depending on how it is installed. Keep in mind, you can have your washing machine, laptop, refrigerator, air-conditioning etc etc, all connected to separate 10A plugs each. Using a home charger would be the equivalent power draw to turning on 3 electric kettles at once to put that into context. However it also matters how long this draws for. If its drawing 24/7, thats a big deal, if its drawing for 1 hour each night. less so.
Tesla level 2 home charging isnt 100-200 amps, its 16-32 amps for Tesla chargers but anything over 40 amps is regarded as level 3.
1
-
@kupasotomotif I am not familiar with either of those cars. But if comparing cars on cost basis you have to compare on an even playing field. Comparing the cost of a ford raptor with a Toyota Corolla isn’t a good way to decide if ford cars are more expensive than Toyota cars. You need similar cars.
That’s why I say you need similar size, class, performance and features to compare EV to ICE to get a good indication of cost. Porsche sell almost exclusively luxury and performance cars. That doesn’t mean cars from Porsche are more expensive. Because you might find cars with similar size, performance, class and luxury features/finish, from the likes of Ford, costed similarly. Ford just also sell cheaper smaller cars which aren’t comparable to the performance or quality of a Porsche.
1.) cars, electric motors and batteries aren’t new technologies. Their application in this case is new. But those technologies are well known.
2.) there is a limit to how many EV’s you can produce per year. There is also a limit to peoples financial abilities to buy new cars. Most people will need to wait for EV’s to penetrate into the second hand market which will take 5-10 years on its own. There is also a limit to the practicality of some people to own one. Renters are disincentivised from buying one as they can’t install a home charger. People who don’t have driveways would avoid EV’s. People with communal parking like apartment blocks would also avoid buying one. There will be a long period of reluctant change in these areas. For example on-street charging for people who don’t have driveways or slowly building enough pressure to get the apartment block super to install charging bays. And how they are regulated.
That will all take a long long time.
4.) yes.
5.) yes, but in comparison to day time use, very little. Night time is off peak. Power consumption is at its lowest. The grid is more than capable of handling that. But if everyone charged during the day during peak times, that might be a different story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aerotuc 200km, even towing, isn't that challenging for EV's these. days. ESPECIALLY downhill. Regenerative braking gives EV's an edge there. Basic physics, if you expend alot of energy going up hill, you can reclaim that energy going downhill. You might remember from first year physics. Potential Energy vs Kinetic Energy?
as for the use of EV's. EVs present certain things that a combustion car just cannot. Mostly, performance and cost. EV's are naturally very fast with instant torque, that appeals to alot of people and its a very fun driving experience. And then there is cost, EV's represent a significant cost saving. I have an EV, and since I no longer have to take my car to a mechanic for regular servicing, and since electricity is much cheaper than fuel, I save myself around $6,800 AUD per year or more depending on how far I drive per year.
My EV, also being a standard range, not a long range, has a range of 400km to a charge. Thats well and truely further than my daily commute. And I might only travel that far or further maybe once or twice in a year.
Which is why I dont mind the charging. Because its better than going to a fuel station. let me explain why. Part of the advantage of getting an EV is that instead of going to a fuel station, electricity is conveniently and cheaply provided to my home. I get home from work, plug in the car as I walk inside, then I just go about my evening, have dinner, watch tv, talk with the wife, have a shower, sleep, get up in the morning, wash myself, get dressed, have breakfast then walk out to the car, and it has the equivalent of a full tank. EVERY. SINGLE. MORNING. meaning I dont have to drive to a fuel station once per week.
For the average person that saves them approximately 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel. So if I have to spend an extra 20 minutes at a super charger each year to do the trip I might only do once or twice per year, Id say that worth saving myself $6,800 and 16-17 hours per year, wouldn't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you dont consume batteries to run the vehicle. in addtion if you look at the practical VOLUMETRIC energy densities, you find that whilst hydrogen is alot lighter, takes up WAYY more volume. To the point of impracticality. The mirai for example is a mid-sized sedan just like the model 3. (albeit the model 3 is a little smaller which makes the comparison worse). The mirai has so little trunk space (and no frunk space like the model 3) that its a whopping 100L less than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size! It has so little cabin space that the rear seats cant physically fold to expand your very small boot into the cabin if you want to put anything big in there. The model 3 however has one of the most spacious cabins in it class, and the second largest boot in its class and a front boot as well. All for only 50 miles less range to a charge/tank than the mirai. Despite also being faster, safer and longer lasting.
You seem to think EV's will "litter" the world. But you are forgetting that batteries are appoximately 95% recyclable. Infact companies such as Tesla recycle all their own batteries after use in-house. You also seem to forget that modern EV's will last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles whilst the mirai's fuel cell isnt rated to last longer than 150,000 miles and 10 years for the fuel tanks, which ever come first. So you'd need to mine, smelt, machine and manufacture, then use, then dispose of 2-3 whole hydrogen cars to meet the service life of one equivalent BEV. And you say BEV's are going to litter the earth. Weird logic if you ask me.
1
-
1
-
Not strictly true. Electric vehicles today are set to last more than 500,000 miles. More than double the average lifespan of an ICE car. Current hydrogen technology places the life of the fuel cell at 250,000 miles and less for the onboard batteries (as life is largely dependent on the size of the battery. Bigger battery, longer life).
As for performance, hydrogen vehicles do have electric motors, true. But not the ability to run them like BEV’s do. The fuel cells don’t have enough power output to adequately accelerate the car. As such it needs to put its energy into battery storage if it’s going to adequately accelerate the car. This energy in a smaller battery bottlenecks the car between output for launch or sudden acceleration, and battery life/health. Which isn’t a big a problem for a BEV, as the batteries are significantly larger. In additon, FCEV’s run very VERY hot. So sudden acceleration would require much large energy losses to cooling. And ONTOP of that, due to the use of heavy, triple layered, anti puncture fuel tanks, hydrogen vehicles are, but-in-large, heavier than their BEV counterparts.
BEV’s also have the ability to boost their performance by adding super capacitors to the motors. This, whilst would boost performance on a hydrogen car also, likely won’t be widely implemented as you are now tripling the energy storage systems you have to manage and balance at all times. This will often be too much for the platforms they’re installed on (not all. You will get performance hydrogen by the average hydrogen car won’t perform as well as BEV).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skymegamarshal well. That is a reasonable answer, however I disagree. In relation to hybrids, they present more complications come end of life, as you have portions of both ice and ev inside them. Which aren’t typically recycled at the same facilities. However most experts agree that end of life impacts of EV and ICE are comparable. Infact EV batteries are around 95% recyclable.
There are more cons than pros with hybrids however. For starters, while EV’s are around 20-60 times less likely to catch fire compared to ICE, hybrids are twice as likely compared to ICE, according to safety regulators and insurance companies.
Then there is the lifespan. Hybrids don’t last as long as ICE or EV. Some newer battery tech is promising longer hybrid ranges but the engines run on a different kind of cycle, and don’t last as long as a typical ICE. Meanwhile current generations EV’s are predicted to outlast their ICE competitors by a significant margin. This means you would have to scrap and build less EV’s than ICE and far less than hybrids.
Then there are emissions. Hybrids, while producing significantly less emissions, still produce emissions. Micro particle emissions from tailpipes are dangerous. They are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US each year alone. They cause developmental issues in infants (cognitive development). And a host of other problems. Hybrids still release these tail pipe emissions. EV’s do not.
Then there is the cost of operation. Whilst EV’s are yet to come down to price scale like hybrids have, but they are coming down as scale increases, hybrids still require regular expensive maintenance. As well as purchasing fuel. Whilst EV’s can be charged at home, often subsidies by your home solar if you have it. Over the lifespan of the EV or the hybrid, (assuming we’re ignoring the need to buy 3-4 hybrids to cover the lifespan of a current EV) EV’s present substantial long term savings. Even with the currently higher ticket price.
Then you also mentioned biodiesel. Which is a solid option apart from the whole Microparticle emissions businesses I mentioned earlier. However it suffers a fatal flaw. And that is that land we use to grow crops for fuel, arent used to go food. For example in the US the government decided it wanted more ethanol in the fuels to reduce emissions. That ethanol had to come from food crops like
Corn.
Suddenly, over a very short period of time, a lot of corn production was being sold as fuel instead of food. The net outcome was a sharp increase in the price of corn, as there was now competition for the corn being grown, against consumers wanting it for food.
Biodiesel would be this, on steroids.
Additionally biodiesel is lower emissions. It’s not zero emission or net zero. As you still have to fuel the harvesters, the plants the extract and process the oil, and the plants that produce the fertiliser for crops. As well as all the transport inbetween.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole post is ironic the moment you mentioned critical thinking. Firstly modern EV batteries last approximately twice the lifespan of a combustion engine. Its also directly related to the size of the battery, which is important considering that hydrogen cars also use Lithium batteries around the size of a hybrid battery. Since this is significantly smaller it has to be retired much sooner, however not as soon as the car. because the fuel cells are only rated to last around half the average lifespan of a combustion engine and the rest of the car rolls off the assembly line with an expiration date for 10 years time. so you need to completely build and retire a whole hydrogen car 2-3 times for every BEV lifespan. Which categorically makes it more heavy on mining and emissions aside from the fact that hydrogen generation creates significantly more emissions than a BEV generates per mile.
Another factor is that Lithium batteries arent 100% recyclable (really nothing is) but is is <96% recyclable. Inclusive of all the rare earth metals. Most of what isn't recyclable is the electrolytic fluid in the batteries which can be broken down to safe organic states or repurposed.
Another part is the child labour. Whilst the most recent Tesla battery the 4680 battery doesnt even use Cobalt Tesla along with other EV manufacturers have signed ethical sourcing agreements as to not use child mined cobalt.
however what is ironic is that whilst batteries are the largest consumer of pure cobalt they are not the largest consumer of Cobalt by mass which includes cobalt based compounds, chemicals and materials.
The largest consumer of cobalt BY MASS are none other than.. dun dun daaaa, FUEL REFINERIES! Bet you didnt see that coming. As for Hydrogen, the only way to mass produce enough hydrogen to supply a national domestic hydrogen fleet is with... dun dun daa! Fossil fuel! which are hydro-carbons. 10 points if you can guess what the hydro in hydro-carbons references.
As for elon musk trying to profit on stupid people. Every business seeks to maximise profit. thats how it works. however the doesnt mean he is wrong about hydrogen. Hydrogen, even green hydrogen, requiring 3-4 times more electricity to produce per mile than batteries use. They are also much slower and shorter lived than batteries, Whilst hydrogen is light weight it takes up a huge amount of volume with all hydrogen vehicles on the market being extremely compromised in cabin and boot space making them effectively impractical to buy. Hydrogen fueling networks are extremely costly to build with a fuel station retrofit costing around $1.2 million whilst a super charger costs $50k and even then you can charge from home with a standard wall outlet. You cant get hydrogen at home either. Hydrogen does go as far as similar sized battery vehicles in range because they dont have the space to put the fuel and the fuel itself is much more expensive owing to the cost of the equipment used to make it, the increased resources and energy required to make it and the fact it has to be sold from creator, to distributor to customer with everyone taking a share of profit along the way making hydrogen incredibly expensive.
They're just not good cars by comparison. Thats why he calls them "fool cells"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffreybresnahan I wasn’t there witnessing it. But is reported unanimously by hundreds of journalists from dozens of countries on the ground witnessing it, by UNICEF, by Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, ICC, and most importantly, it being captured on video by hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on social media.
You going to say that every news journalist on the ground, hundreds of Ukrainians, UNICEF, Amnesty and Doctors Without Borders are all trying to pin war crimes on Putin to cover up nazi genocide? how messed up in the head must you be!?
And many many posts? What are you talking about? Aside from this thread I’ve only commented on like 3 other comments. Again, you’re living in a fantasy work.
And Putin is saviour of ukraine? Have you not see the hundreds and hundreds of Ukrainian in Russian captured areas marching on Russian tanks protesting chanting “shame” and “get out”? Then being shot at by the Russians in return? No? It’s all over the place. It’s not hard to find. Ukraine doesn’t want Russia there, they don’t need saving, Putin is pumping propaganda, to justify him grabbing ukraine to cling onto his Soviet “glory days”.
If he was telling f the truth why doesn’t even his allies agree with him? Like China? And why does the entire world unanimously disagree with him? Including fundamental non political organisations like Doctors Without Borders?
And if he’s so for the truth, why is it he’s suppressing all media of ukraine in Russia and threatening 15 years jail for even calling it a war? Yet alone disagreeing with him.
At what point are you going to realise you either fell hard for his lies and propaganda and you’re trying to justify the pointless slaughter of civilians?
And I’m not paid by anyone and I’m not American. I’m AUSTRALIAN you however, sound like a Russian propaganda puppet troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffreybresnahan how long have you been trying to get Mariupol and odessa? a while huh? also, whilst the US was in Iraq and Afghanistan longer, it didnt tell the world it would be over in less than a week.
I also feel the need to point at that whilst the US only lost 6,832 over both conflicts combined, over a period of 18 years. The russians have lost, according to their own publication which they promptly removed, 10,000 KIA in less than a month and 16,000 wounded.
Meanwhile, how goes capturing Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv or holding kherson? No so well huh? last I heard russians lost major territory in all those regions being pushed back by ukrainian forces. Which would mean you're getting pushed further away from odessa. not getting closer.
Also Last I heard you're slowly being pushed out of Kherson, the only city the russians have actually managed to capture. all whilst the population is showing up in the thousands to protest the russians there, far from being "liberated" they are protesting the russians, even persisting after being shot at by russians for protesting. Of which there is video of. so dont go denying that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ImageLoX As I said, Hydrogen vehicles are not suited for the domestic vehicle market. They wont be successful there. Hydrogen can be successful in other areas but not for domestic vehicles.
When you compare them with BEV's they are heavier (yes, heavier), Slower, handle worse, are less safe, less convenient and significantly more expensive. And if those metric weren't enough, they also have a fatal lacking of space due to the volume hydrogen takes up. Meaning you get less cabin and storage space in hydrogen vehicles than even ICE vehicles yet alone combustion cars.
The fact that it takes 3 times more energy alone from the same grid to produce 1 mile worth of hydrogen than if you had just used that energy to charge a BEV means that Hydrogen will never be cheaper than a BEV per mile in operational costs. thats without plant overheads, profit markups from the plant, profit markups ontop of that for the fuel station, transportation, cost of water etc etc etc.
Further to that end, infrastructure is also critically more expensive. It costs on average $1.5 million to retrofit a fuel station to supply hydrogen. $1.5 million. A bay of super chargers costs $200,000. Thats 7.5 times more for a hydrogen station than a super charging station.
I also said earlier they are less convenient. Thats because for most people (not all but the majority) they can charge at home when they're not using their BEV. As most homes have electricity. thats on average 0 hours spend per year chasing fuel if you can charge at home while you're asleep. People who have to refuel often do so around once per week. This means they spend on average 16-17 hours per year chasing fuel. Less convenient. Sure if you take longer trips you spend more time charging from a super charger network. But that amounts to an extra 1.5 hours for a 1,000 miles road trip which someone might take as regularly as once or twice a year. So it doesnt come close to breaking even for time.
As for range, Hydrogen doesnt offer much in that area either. Again due to the large volume hydrogen takes up. Consider the Hydrogen FCEV Mid-sized sedan, the Toyota Mira against the Battery Electric Mid-sized sedan the Tesla Model 3. The model 3 has a range of 325 miles. Whilst the Mirai has a range of 400 miles. only 75 miles more. and for what?
The Model 3 has huge amounts of storage and cabin space with extra space in the front. The Mirai has less boot space than a Toyota Yarris despite being double the size and has so little cabin space you cant physically fold the rear seats to make more storage room.
The Model 3 does 0-60 in 3.2s. The Mirai does it in 9.2s.
For 75 more miles you have the pain of constantly refuelling every week. borderline unusable amount of storage space, abysmal performance, reduced safety, and operational costs per miles around 15-20 times more per mile.
There is no real advantage for hydrogen in the domestic vehicle market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The state of South Australia has 70% renewables, have the second cheapest wholesale energy price in Australia and the most stable gird in Australia. Germany is also not an example of renewables failure but a renewables success. However Germany is fairly limited geographically for renewables and would need the implementation of the European super grid to actually get to fully renewable. Otherwise winters will become a long standing problem for them.
As for home solar, It cost me $7,800 to install. Its a 5.5kW system (after inversion losses). on winter days (sunny, not hard in Australia) we produce around 20kWh, In summer days we produce 40kWh in a day. (sometimes more depending on cloud cover). 5.5kW a lot more than is required to run a blow drier (typically 1.9-2.4 kW draw). We have a 50 kWh electric vehicle good for 400km on a charge. We only drive around 100km per day (12.5 kWh used by the EV on average). So the car has to charge up 12.5kWh. which a charging efficiency averaged for that car to be 96% efficient it would require 13 kWh to charge from the panels. (FYI we charge the EV at 3kW.)
Fortunately due to current circumstances my wife works night shift and takes the EV, while I work from home, meaning we can charge it during the day direct from solar, However a standard home energy storage would be able to store enough energy to charge the car, otherwise we get money back from the grid for putting in power to the grid. So no, you're wrong about solar there buddy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesemcclure I dont think you've fully thought through your argument. Firstly, Batteries are not like hydrogen, infact Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars need Lithium Batteries to operate. Hyundai's Hydrogen truck the Xcient uses a 75kWh battery pack. The same size thats in a Model 3 Long range. But you seem pretty keen not to hold the batteries in Hydrogen cars to the same classification.
You dont fill up your battery with new cells every time it goes flat, They're a capital expenditure of the car from manufacture. Not something you refill to fuel your car make them distinctly different. If we're talking about battery recycling we're talking about car recycling but that wouldnt a road I'd want to go down if I like hydrogen cars.
This is because Hydrogen cars dont last nearly as long. A modern BEV has a battery life of around 500,000 miles. This isnt theory, its fact, older generation batteries are doing so and newer generation batteries are showing less than 5% degradation even after 200,000 miles.
Hydrogen cars however, come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap. Limiting the life of the car to only 15 years. In addition, the fuel cells in these cars are only rated to last between 150,000-200,000 miles depending on the manufacturer.
So for every lifetime of a BEV you'd have to make and dispose of 3-4 FCEV's and all the emissions that go along with it.
1
-
1
-
@jamesemcclure And finally, as for making the hydrogen, well this might be a shock for you but green hydrogen is made by using the same electricity that chargers BEV's, fossil fuels and all. And whilst you stated Hydrogen can easily be made with renewable electricity (which it can), BEV's can just as easily take advantage of renewable electricity. This particular argument was a breath taking feat of special pleading. I'm not trying to be insulting but I just want to point out how absurd that is as an argument, you are implying that EV's cant be charged from renewables, yet you can have a solar panel on any roof. Even on the roof of those who own and charge EV's from home.
But here is the rub, Green hydrogen requires between 3-4 times the electricity per miles worth of hydrogen than BEV's need per mile. They get their energy from the exact same grid powered by the exact same mix of fossil fuels and renewables. That means that hydrogen cars will emit 3-4 times more emissions per miles from power generation alone. Thats for Green Hydrogen
However the most common and cheapest way to produce hydrogen is by splitting it from fossil fuels in a process that emits more emissions than if you had just burn the fuels in the first place.
When people buy these things and are already paying twice as much per mile for hydrogen, they will inevitably get what ever is the cheapest. And that would be the dirty hydrogen.
Sorry but BEV's are much greener. They also last long, have better performance, are safer (and no i'm not talking about how explosive hydrogen is), cheaper to operate, more convenient to operate and have better cargo and cabin space than hydrogen cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garymarquett7989 just to get this straight. Coal fire power plants produces, at worst, 1000g of CO2 per kWh. EV's get around 0.13 kWh per km (for the Tesla model 3 for example). which is 130g per km of emissions. On a coal only grid which almost every grid on the plant, isnt.
in every L of fuel, when you burn it you release around 2300 grams of fuel. If we take a similar size and class car, like the model 3's biggest competitor, the BMW M3, we get 11.6L/100km. or 0.116L/km. So thats 266.8g of emissions.
Then lets consider refining fuel, Fuel refining. Which is around 700g per L of fuel. So for the 266.8g/km mentioned above it becomes 348g per km. Which is a little more than the EV's 130g per km on a coal only grid. Which also becomes closer to 80g on the standard US grid mix to give you context of how worst case that is.
But lets comes to a car that doesnt have similar trim, performance or market as the model 3. Lets assume a relatively efficient 8L/100km car, that will produce 240g per km.
are you getting my drift here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mtube54 I didnt say that they needed any repairs. I said they needed no servicing. as in, regular required servicing. Such as ICE cars requiring air filter, spark plug, oil filter and oil changes every 10,000 km.
as for suspension and bushings in the arm linkages, these parts are extremely long wearing. have you ever had to replace any suspension bushings? i doubt it, I am yet to meet anyone who has. I'm no saying it doesnt happen. Im saying its not regular.
as for moving parts, ICE cars have hundreds of thousands of moving parts. EV's have hundreds. and the parts that do move, with the exception of 3, have been refined in the automotive industry for as long as the industry has been around. for example, doors and suspension. to certainly there is nothing new there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You say albo is bad. but Labor hasnt had a go at government for a decade. and the last time they were in government, Australia improved in nearly every metric. Economics, foreign policy, jobs, education, infrastructure, energy. The current governement says they've lowered emissions. they havnt. that was labor. current emissions are lower than they were when labor took the government from john howard. But since it went back to liberals, its been climbing again ever since. How long is it ok to take credit for someone elses accomplishments.
and at least albo hasnt burnt several international and domestic bridges. such as the debark with the french priminister, not ordering vaccines, the solomon islands. etc. etc. If we leave liberals in, and you vote none of the above, we continue with worse in our downwards trajectory. At least if we vote for labor we have a relatively fresh slate on the international stage and we could start doing better. we might not, it might be more of the same. but at the moment scott hasnt set a very high bar to do better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@n.d.1011 well to begin with. No, EV batteries are generally accepted to be greater than 95% efficient recyclable. Fuel cells also use palladium which is incredibly toxic to people and the environment.
As mentioned in my previous comment not only do hydrogen cars also use lithium batteries because the fuel cells dont produce enough power to adequately accelerate the car, but they also only last around 150,000 miles or less. Getting less efficient as it goes on (using more fuel). Whilst a BEV will last 4-5 times that lifespan. So no, I wouldn't say building 4-5 new cars to accommodate the life of 1 BEV is "on parr"
Also utilising hydrogen for renewable energy storage is counter productive and inefficient. Renewables need storage, not to palm it off to vehicles or to be used for something else but to cover energy production when renewables are underperforming to stabilise the fluctuations in renewable generation. So selling that as fuel serves little purpose other than to compromise the stability of your own grid. And the excess wont be enough to fuel many vehicles and definitely not reliable enough to fuel a hydrogen economy.
Then its also inefficient. If you put say 100MWh into hydrogen storage, by the time you get it back as electricity you'd only have 20-30MWh left. So you're throwing the majority of the energy down the drain because you might be able to use it as an unreliable source of fuel to compromise the operation of your energy grid.
Meanwhile almost every other form of grid energy storage is far more efficient. Compressed air storage, liquid salt, kinetic, battery electric, hydroelectric, thermoelectric the list goes on. its all far more efficient and more responsive than hydrogen with the benefit of also not being explosive.
So whilst its a novel idea to use excess renewable energy to produce car fuel. its not practical in the least to do so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@figh761 well for starters, there are only 2 ways you can get hydrogen. From fossil fuels, or from water. Using fossil fuels, you release more carbon than if you had just used the fossil fuels as we well.. fuel in the first place. Getting it from water requires electricity. ALOT of electricity. Infact it takes 3-4 times more electricity per miles worth of hydrogen than if you had used that electricity to charge a BEV battery.
That means that hydrogen will always be at least 3-4 times more expensive than BEV's to operate per mile on electricity costs alone. even without considering re-selling and distribution and other costs involved.
Then there is lifespan. Hydrogen cars come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them for only around 10 years because of what hydrogen does to the fuel tanks and metal structure of the car. Then the fuel cell itself is only lasts around 150,000 miles before its considered end of life. Meanwhile modern BEV's have 1,500 cycles to a lifespan (80% of their original battery capacity). for alot of BEV's thats reach up to and over 500,000 miles lifespan.
Then there is practicality. Hydrogen suffers from two problems. The first is power. Hydrogen cars cant get alot of power very easily. Making them very slow and horrible for towing. Even hydrogen trucks, unloaded cannot reach freeway speeds because they lack the power. That's to do with the surface area available for the catalyst in fuel cells, and the inefficiencies of the fuel cells with automotive fuel cells struggling to reach 60% efficient.
The second problem with practicality is Volume. Whilst hydrogen fuel is incredibly light weight, it takes up a breath-taking amount of volume. The Mirai for example carries 5.6kg of hydrogen to travel only 400 miles. But to do that it needs tank volumes significantly larger than you'd find on a Ford F150 twice its size. They also have to squeeze in the tank liners which are 1 inch thick as well as a battery for power regulation and the fuel cell for power generation and the electric motor.
All together that means that unlike BEV's hydrgoen cars dont have a front truck. They also have impractically small luggage space and cabin space.
The Mirai for example again has a boot so small that its almost a full 100L less than a Toyota Yarris half its size. Meanwhile the cabin space is so small you cannot fold the rear seats if you wanted to extend the unbelievably small boot space into the cabin. There is even a cut out in the roof so rear passengers can have the legal minimum head clearance inside the car.
This also means they cant fit enough fuel to have any significant advantage over rage compared to BEV's. The Mirai for example is a similar size to the Tesla Model S dimensionally. The model S long range can get 412 miles to a charge, whilst the Mirai gets 402 miles.
So to summarise, they cost significantly more to operate (at the moment around 20x more per mile), they are slower, dont last nearly as long, and have absolutely no cabin or cargo space for their size, in complete contrast to BEV"s which are famed for having excessive amounts of both. and they are less green than BEV's All whilst struggling to match BEV's in range.
Thats why they cant compete. there is really no advantage of having a hydrogen car over a BEV what so ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mstnglvrr Hydrids which arent EV's firstly Hybrids dont have battery management systems to monitor their charge and discharge and keep them at idea temperatures. Secondly they are very small, an EV has a cycle life (to 70% health) of 1,500 cycles, for a car with 325 miles thats 1,500 x 325 = 487,500 miles. For a 400 miles battery thats 1,500 x 400 = 600,000 miles. Meaning battery size matters. A hydrid usually only has 25 miles, so thats 37,500 miles of battery driving.
EV's arent hybrids, that should be fairly obvious. Im still confused. Do people not think that EV's and Hybrids are different?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hagerty1952 there is around 139.64 million houses in the US with an average surface area of 150m2. Current solar panels output 1kW per square meter. I’m saying that, the available space not currently used for solar generation on people’s homes is around 150x139,640,000=20,0946 Gigawatts which we could round to 21,000 Gigawatts. Given a 30% utilisation rate that becomes 6,300 GW. Assuming an average 2549 hours of direct sunshine per year (from data at current results / weather). Which means you’d have a yearly power production of around 16 peta watts per year.
For storage you could put in a small 10kWh storage per home, and couple it with big battery and hydro storage. That capacity would need to be your 450GW for the hours the sun isn’t shinning
There are 8760 hours in a year. The sun shines an average of 2549 hours. So we need 8760-2549=6211 hours, at 450Gw which is 2.7 PWh. If we had 10kWh storage in 139.64 million homes that’s 1396.4 kWh storage would have a capacity of 0.0013964 PWh. So big battery and hydro would have to share the rest.
However with diversification using wind nationally, as well as geothermal and nuclear, you could easily achieve the 450GW overnight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you read the wells to wheels reports? The emissions put out by EV’s during manufacturing is only about 15% more than an ICE Vehicle. Which equates to around 1T. Meanwhile during their operational life, even on a coal only grid, EV’s will produce 20-30T less emissions over their operational life whilst their end of life is generally agreed to be comparable to one another in terms of impacts.
Hydrogen however is most commonly made from splitting hydro-Carbons where the carbon is released into atmosphere. I.e more fossil fuels. In addition hydrogen requires much much more energy to split. If you follow the efficiencies between hydrogen and batteries you find that per km a hydrogen vehicle will need double the amount of electricity from the very same grid per km of travel. In addition to this if you were to make green hydrogen through electrolysis, you would need 3 times the energy. So if 1 wind far can power the needs of 100 BEV’s, you would need 3 wind farms to power the needs of 100 hydrogen cars. Meaning you need to build 3 times the grid infrastructure. Which has its own carbon footprint.
Lastly, hydrogen cars do use large batteries, not as large as BEV’s but larger than hybrids. Because the fuel cell to fit in the car has a small surface area and thus low power output. Especially for acceleration. Which is why they’re so slow.
Further to that, the manufacturing impacts aren’t as severe as BEV’s, for hydrogen they are still worse than ICE vehicles. Making a fuel cell with palladium isn’t an energy friendly process. Neither is making 3 triple layered, high density, high pressure, anti-puncture fuel tanks with high density high pressure fuel lines. Because hydrogen particles are so small, they can leak out of almost anything and become extremely explosive in the presence of even a little air. For example, anything designed to contain propane or natural gas. will almost definitely leak hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually probably not. Whilst hydrogen is lighter than batteries it suffers from three major drawbacks when it comes to trucking. Power, *Volume and Cost Batteries provide significantly more power to the trucks giving them better road handling characteristics. I'll back that up with practical examples further down. But also importantly is that Hydrogen requires around twice the volume for storage than Batteries do. Meaning you don't actually have enough space to get significant range out of it. Especially when you have to shoe horn other things in there to compensate for the lack of power such as additional fuel cells, massive lithium batteries (yes, I know) and even an 8 speed transmission because it cant supply enough power to the electric motors. All of which takes up even more space. and finally, Hydrogen is expensive. VERY expensive. and will always be far more expensive than running a Battery Electric
So lets look at practical comparison. The Tesla semi has been doing on-road trials with shipping companies. You can find plenty of videos online of them on the road in these trails. Here is what we know about it.
-Range fully loaded is 500 miles
-Has an extraordinarily fast 0-60 fully loaded, even up a steep hill.
-Can reach freeway speeds fully loaded.
-Does not have a transmission and is direct drive from the motors.
-The above space saving means a typically better turning circle than a typical semi.
-Operates for around $0.5 per mile.
-Has a lifespan over 1 million miles
Lets compare that to the Hyundai Hydrogen Semi.
-It has a range of 400 miles fully loaded
-It cannot reach freeway speeds even when unloaded increasing transit times which means more overheads to pay drivers meaning more expensive for the companies.
-It has an 8 speed transmission and 2 x 95kW fuel cells
-Has over 800L of fuel tanks, almost double that of a typical semi.
-Has a 75kWh Lithium Battery (same size as a Tesla Model 3 Long Range battery)
-To fit everything in the first trailer needs to be an expensive custom trailer with reduced height and the wheel base is extended to fit fuel tanks giving it a worse turning circle.
-Costs around $1.32 per mile according to current fuel prices.
-Has a life span of only 150,000 miles.
So compared to battery electric trucks, Hydrogen trucks are considerably more expensive, increases driver overhead costs because they're slow, are less manoeuvrable, have reduced trailer volume, have less range, all for a significantly shorter lifepsan.
So.... yeah, for freight hydrogen isn't really a go-er either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are dozens of studies out there that do this including one by the council of concerned scientists who practically assessed the production, use life impact, and end of life impacts of similarly sized, classed and trim vehicles.
What they found was during production EV’s produced approximately 1 ton more emissions (15% more) than combustion cars (this sounds low because people talk about the impact of the battery but forget that an EV no longer needs to mine, smelt and machine an engine block, transmission, fuel tank or differentials). However they also found the that even on a coal based grid, during their operational life they use 20-30 tons less emissions than Combustion cars. This includes wells to wheels, it includes mining, sorting, cleaning and transportation to coal to coal power plants plus transmission losses. Likewise this also includes drilling, shipping, piping, refining, then trucking of oil/fuel. As well as regular replacement parts such as regular oil changes, oil filters, spark plugs, timing belts, etc.
They also found than end of life impacts between the two types of cars were roughly equivalent. Both are very recyclable but combustion cars, like EV’s currently, typically get crushed and put in a landfill. However EV batteries have the ability to have a close loop recyclability of lithium so it will be interesting to see where that goes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexdockery6003 you say You’re annoyed and false statements then immediately make a false statement. Modern EV batteries have warrantees alone for 8 years and 100,000 miles (and some unlimited miles). Older Gen EV’s such as the 2012 Model S are commonly now surpassing 300,000 and 400,000 miles and some well over 500,000 miles and modern battery cycles life for modern battery packs are 1,500 cycles.
In addition it was found by numerous wells to wheels studies comparing similar size, class and trim vehicles that whilst EV produce approximately 15% more emissions during manufacturing, (which equates to about 1 ton) over their service life (of a classic combustion cars 250,000 miles life) a combustion car will emit 20-30 tons more emissions that an EV when including oil changes, regular replacement parts, fuel to well, etc. they almost always find the hot end of life impacts are roughly equivalent as more than 95% of current lithium ion batteries are recyclable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boowiebear well to go into more detail, hydrogen is less safe than BEV, as less performance or lifespan, they are more expensive than BEV’s to operate, and they waste more time refueling, because if we’re use case and behaviour, moats people don’t have daily commutes even approaching half of a typical EV’s range on today’s market. So they have no use for charging at super chargers or destination chargers and can instead charge either at home when they’re sleeping and otherwise not using the car or at work when they’re not using the car.
Either way, 0 hours typically wasted getting fuel, hydrogen, like combustion, will have to refuel once a week, wasting time driving there and back and refuling. The average person spends 17 hours a year in the pursuit of fuel. 17 hours not spent if you use an EV.
So by average use case for the average person, BEV, offer better safety, performance, lifetime, operating costs and convenience/time management.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyromcr Yeah, the Hyperion. Which had to maximise its battery banks and catalytic area to get the power from the fuel cells required to drive the thing. As a result it has to sacrifice cargo space and cabin space. It is a purpose built 2 door no boot 2 seater cramped performance car. the result is 221 mph max speed and a 0-100 of 2.2 seconds. Its as practical as a daily driver as a Lamborghini aventador
remember those specs. Because the Tesla Model S plaid, which goes for less than a half the price or even more is a 4 door, 5 seat, luxury family sedan with 2 boots, large cabin space, and all the heavy luxury features such as heated/cooled seats, steering wheels, sun roof, etc.
It is a 0-100 of 1.99s, and a max speed of 200mph.
so for less than half the cost you get a car that has better performance and can be used a family car and daily driver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyromcr I’m not saying a Tesla sedan is a better track car. But a Tesla sedan can achieve similar and in some categories better performance without needed to sacrifice comfort and practicality to do so. I would have thought that as a pretty clear point.
I’ve seen someone win the lottery. Doesn’t mean it happens often. According to the ANCAP safety board, the NTHSA board, NCAP safety board, the beuro of statistics and others, EV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident.
However the bias remains because, as proven by several social science studies from numerous university and organisations, the only time car fires are reported is when someone famous dies, or it’s an EV.
And yes, puncture test is different to a breach. And whole time diffuses quickly in atmosphere but hydrogen is also extremely explosive even in minute amounts. Small punctures such as a bullet hole don’t pose much threat due to the press ejecting the fuel. A tear due to a collision hard enough to tear the car in 2, (which isn’t an uncommon occurrence on freeway speeds) will cause an explosion. This isn’t a hypothetical. Test results prove this. That’s why they only show footage of hydrogen tanks being shot. Not torn in two, also why you never see high speed collision tests, and why they say tank puncture not large scale tank failures. The wording is very specific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nat Smythe here’s another. If the ocean increases in temperature but even just a little bit. The amount of water evaporated into the air as clouds increases. Over the area of the ocean. A little bit warmer is a lot more evaporation. That makes clouds heavier. Which means they dump more rain as they move inland and the dump it faster with the clouds being expended more near coastal areas. This increases the likelihood and severity of flooding events Guess what we’re seeing?
Since the clouds are drying out faster before they get more inland, other areas will experience increased occursnces and severities of droughts. Guess what we’re already seeing?
This also leads to higher foliage in areas due to repeated flooding which, when it dries out, creates the perfect conditions for devastating fires. Guess what happened at the end of 2019? One of the largest bushfires in recorded history.
But idiots with google think because climate scientists doing hand calculations in the 1980’s predicted a change of X degrees by 2020, despite not know how computers, renewables, EV’s covid, eruptions, etc etc would all affect such predictions. And the temperatures predicted were out by say 10%-20% that therefore all predictions are entirely wrong because the science is wrong.
Sorry but they’re not. They’re not pinpoint, time machine, crystal ball accurate. But what they describe happening is indeed happening.
Maybe when the most educated and intelligent people on the planet collectively tell you something. Maybe. Just maybe, they know what they’re talking about more than joe blogs on YouTube conspiracy channels who didn’t even passed high school.
1
-
@Nat Smythe you clearly don’t understand what peer review means. Let me elaborate. Let’s say I collect data and do an analysis. I have to publish those findings in scientific papers or publications. All the information required to replicate the study is provided to the entire world. (in this case being the “peers” or “fellow man”) anyone, from dick and Harry in their grandmothers basement to Stephen Hawkins, can see, replicate your analysis and conclusions and conduct their own. In this case reviewing and verifying your results and conclusions. If they think your argument is illogical, isn’t supported by the evidence, your calculations flawed or ignores contradictory facts or data, than anyone who find that from dick and Harry to Stephen Hawkins can publish their own article or paper, purely on why the original paper was faulty or bad.
It requires very little investment of funds, much less time, and if debunking an established or accepted hypothesis, makes that author very famous and rich. Likewise, everyone else is free to peer review their rebuttal paper, and so on and so forth.
This air a process you and I can take part in.
Why it’s less expensive is because to do experiments and tests to collect the data, one must buy the machines, instruments, pay for the time to do the experiments the materials, any travel and so on. Someone with the exact same funding from say a University or their own pocket, can disprove your paper on its merits alone and no spend a dime. But if successful opens them to grants, scholarships, paid interviews, paid written opinion pieces for scientific publications etc etc.
But one needs to be careful. Although your rebuttal if substantiated can make you famous and leave the original papers authors career in tatters. If someone makes a rebuttal to your rebuttal and is factually substantive and accurate, your reputation will be in taters. So there is every incentive to be as accurate and backed by facts and figures and sound logic before publishing. Lest you end your own carreer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well modern BEV’s actually have ranges similar to hydrogen up around the 300-400 mile mark. Additionally, if you have power at your home, all you gotta do is plug it in every night at home and you have effectively a full tank every day.
Hydrogen isn’t very practical though. Even just looking at the use of the car. Hydrogen is light weight but takes up a huge volume. Take the Toyota Mirai for example. Similar size to the Tesla Model 3 but slightly larger. It has a boot so small that it’s actually 100L smaller than a Toyota Yaris’s boot. A car less than half its size. And it has so little cabin space that you can’t actually fold the rear seats down to extend the boot. And unlike the Tesla it has no front boot. That’s all because it has to have 5.6kg of hydrogen to travel 400 miles. But that takes up 141L of fuel tank volume. That’s a larger fuel tank in a midsized sedan than you’d find on a Ford F-150!
The model 3 has near class leading cargo space with a generous boot, a second boot within it under a false floor where a fuel tank would be, and the front engine bay is another boot again. It also has huge cabin space for its size and is able to fold the rear seats to extend the boot.
Then there is getting the hydrogen. You can get electricity anywhere. Infact even from a wall power point charger you can charge the car outside in the rain running an extension cable. It takes a number of hours yes but you can do it overnight whilst asleep. No time out of your day, with full range every single morning. Instead of finding somewhere once per week to get hydrogen from.
Another factor to practicality is cost of operation. To drive a model 3 it costs you approximately 2 cents per mile to operate. Hydrogen is very expensive on the other hand, costing you 20x more per mile to drive.
And finally modern EV’s are designed to last a long time, contrary to popular belief, modern EV’s are designed to last up to 500,000 miles before the battery is deemed to need replacing. That’s twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine. Infact older 2012 generation EV’s are already punching over 400,000 to 500,000 miles on their original batteries.
Meanwhile, hydrogen vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap, limiting the life of the vehicle to only 10 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the point is that the cheapest and easiest way to produce hydrogen on mass is with fossil fuels. Also the only way to distribute it effectively is through fuel stations. Which fossil fuel companies also own a monopoly on. In a future where governments and phasing out combustion engine cars, hydrogen is the only option for fossil fuel companies. so they push them hard. They hide all the massive negatives and downsides to hydrogen whilst actively fund dis-information campaigns for BEV's. Here is an example.
Lies pushed about EV's:
1.) they're fire hazards, they are actually around 11 times safer than ICE for spontaneous combustion and 5 times safer in a crash in relation to catching fire.
2.) They have short life spans, But modern EV's have lifespans around 500,000 miles or more which is double that of a standard ICE.
3.) they're heavy and the tires wear out faster. Tires dont wear out faster on thinks like Ford F150's why would they wear faster on a BEV? additionally they dont weigh more than other cars typically in their class. Because whilst the batteries are heavy, they also dont have massive engine blocks and a 6 speed transmission.
4.) They're only for city run abouts - Modern EV's have ranges pushing above 300-400 miles to a charge. Way more than your daily commute and super charging today can take as little as 5-10 minutes.
5.) You'll be waiting hours for it to charge. - You typically charge EV's at home. When you're asleep. Far from wasting time this saves the average person around 16-17 hours per year getting fuel as every morning you wake up to effectively a full tank of gas.
6.) they run on coal therefore they're worse. Even on a fully coal grid EV's a much greener than ICE cars, even before considering fuel refining. But even then the majoriy of electricity in the US nationally is gas, not coal. and that majority is only 34% of the total energy production with around 32% being made from emission free sources making them greener again.
Things nobody talks about in relation to Hydrogen:
1.) they extremely short lived. The fuel cells alone only last around 150,000 miles according to Hyundai and Toyota. They also come off the assembly line with an 10 year expiration date printed on the fuel caps
2.) they are VERY slow. Fuel cells are notoriously low power output. To make them practically fast, you need to make the car impartial as a daily driver.
3.) whilst hydrogen is extremely light weight, it takes up a HUGE amount of volume. You will get literally more cabin space and boot space in a Toyota Yaris than in a Toyota Mirai even though the mirai is twice the size of the yaris.
4.) they dont Acutally get much further than similar sized BEV's if any further at all. The long range Model S is probably the closest to the Mirai dimensionally, and it goes 412 miles to a charge whilst the Mirai only gets 402. And you have alot of extra space if Tesla wanted to add more batteries, but the Mirai has no space to add extra fuel tanks as previously discussed.
5.) most hydrogen fuel is made with fossil fuels
6.) even green hydrogen uses 3-4 times more grid energy per mile than if you had used that same grid energy to charge a BEV.
Clearly, when comparing how the two are talked about in the media and "news articles" there is definitely an agenda being pushed. and its definitely not against hydrogen like most people think it is. (for some reason most people think big oil wants to prop up BEV's and are running a campaign against hydrogen. yet another narrative lie)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@figjam5181 EV’s have been rapidly expanding. The model 3 is the best selling luxury vehicle in the US, in any category, out of all the Audi, BMW, Mercedes. And it’s sold more last year than it’s next two nearest competitors combined.
EV adopting is accelerating so far Tesla and building factories all over the globe and they still can’t meet demand with a 4 month + wait list even before covid.
As for other auto makers. Ford, Honda, BMW, Toyota, GM, Audi, Jaguar, Porsche etc etc have all announced or have released a wide range of EV’s. And only two of those companies just mentioned have hydrogen cars announced or released. Hell, even Toyota which has historically been staunchly hydrogen have announced the release of more EV models than all the hydrogen models and prototypes it’s ever had combined.
So yeah, the technology is speaking for itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@figjam5181 number 1 best selling car in Australia, that isn’t a Ute (not in direct competition with any EV, is the Toyota Corolla, with a fuel range of 760.
Number 2 is Hyundai I30, 680,
Number 3 Mazda CX-5, 700km
Number 4 mazda 3, 760km,
Number 5 Kia cerato 730km.
Tesla model S long range 700km,
Tesla model 3 long range 600km.
Top 5 best selling cars in Australia don’t even measure up to your 800-1,000km benchmark. Maybe that should tell you something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just a few corrections. The cost of hydrogen vehicles is higher than EV’s. Their fuel is even more expensive per mile than ICE yet alone EV’s.
The fuel cells and fuel tanks don’t last as long as BEV batteries, infact, ironically, the longest lasting part of the car are the batteries.
Hydrogen production requires 4x the electricity from the same grid that charges BEV’s for green hydrogen or is needed to be extracted from fossil fuels releasing ALOT of carbon. So either way hydrogen produces significantly more emissions. As for weight. Turns out hydrogen cars are similar in weight to BEV’s because of their reinforced tanks and chassis to protect them. Since they store gas at such a high pressure that even if it wasn’t the most explosive gas known to man, it would release the energy of a hand grenade if it were to burst.
The fuel cells in hydrogen cars use extraordinary amounts of precious metals, most far more toxic than anything found in a battery, meanwhile batteries are moving away from cobalt, Tesla even making the switch to LFP batteries. Hence no child mining. Additionally most battery companies like Tesla have signed contracts stipulating ethically sourced cobalt only. So again, no child mining. If only the same could be said for fuel refineries which use the most cobalt on the planet by mass (as in, in compounds, or chemicals with cobalt, not pure cobalt metal). Which have absolutely never had any pressure from the public to move towards ethical cobalt. So ironically again, people driving ICE vehicles are doing far more to support child mining in the Congo than any BEV is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fossil fuel companies are trying to artificially float hydrogen against EV's. Not the other way around. Most fuel companies are well aware alot of first world countries have set deadlines for fossil fuel car sales to be phased out. they're not stupid. They back hydrogen and are pushing it. Thats because hydrogen is primarily made with and most cheaply made with... you guessed it, fossil fuels, Coal gas or oil. (because they're hydro-carbons). Additionally, you can only get hydrogen from a fuel station. Who owns a monopoly on fuel stations? fossil fuel companies infact fuel stations are the second largest capital investment, all that land and infrastructure just to sell fuel. Imagine the blow they'd take if all that was made worthless overnight by EV's? ooff. thats their single largest income stream, and second largest capital investment... gone!
Hydrogen is their only solution. thats why you keep hearing why hydrogen is great. you never hear that hydrogen doesnt get as far as similar sized BEV's, that they're slow, that they have no boot space (mirai has a smaller boot than a Yaris) that they last 1/4 the lifespan of BEV's or that they roll off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them for 10 years life before you have to replace the car. those little details are kept from people.
Meanwhile they try to smear BEV's to downplay the competition, trying to convince people they'd stand around waiting for a charge, when you save more time charging at home than you do going to a fuel station. that the batteries dont last long even thought modern EV batteries last twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine, that they're expensive to maintain even thought they have nothing to service, or that they're fire hazards despite almost every automotive safety board and multiple statistical bodies declaring they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to an ICE vehicle and when they do combust they're safer, because the fire moves slowly, often smoking for hours before visible flames appear, unlike combustion cars which typically are fully engulfed with flames within the first 60 seconds.
so no, they're not being "annihilated* by fossil fuel companies, they're being artificially floated by fossil fuel companies because its their last option to keep afloat. if the world transitions to batteries, no one needs fuel stations, no one needs fossil fuels for vehicles, you can charge at home off home solar. they'd be done. and they're not stupid. they know this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@74aussieguy lastly there is performance trade off. Fuel cells have an exceptionally now power output. So to get enough power to accelerate adequacy they use a large battery bank to supply the energy to the electric motor. But because that battery bank is much smaller than BEV’s two things happen, 1.) less power is supplied to the motor (bigger battery more power flow available, smaller battery less power flow). And secondly the battery life is drastically reduced (battery life depends on cycles, current batteries have 1,500 cycles, with a Tesla that has a range of 700km to a charge that’s 1 million km of range before it needs replacing. For a hydrogen car that has a smaller battery that can only travel 50km, that’s 75,000km of range before it needs replacing.)
To get more power you need more space to have larger fuel cells and larger batteries. This means it has to take up either cargo space, passenger space, fuel capacity or a combination of the 3. So while you can have the Tesla model S which is a luxury 4 door, 5 seat family sedan with not one trunk but 2, at hyper car speeds (the plaid model is now the fastest production car on the planet), not achieved by even purpose built 2 door no trunk single seat performance cars, you won’t get the same with hydrogen. To get anywhere near the performance you’d have to sacrifice its practicality. Less range, less space, less passengers.
1
-
Current Battery technology, will last far longer than even ICE engines, yet alone hydrogen which has a further limited life. You talk about batteries degrading over time (20% over 500,000 miles for current generation batteries) hydrogen fuel cells also degrade over time (current Hydrogen Fuel cells only last approximately 100,000-150,000 miles and reduce in power and increase fuel consumption as they approach that end of life) In addition the car degrades over time, Hydrogen embrittlement of metals result in the fuel tanks themselves being limited to 10-15 years depending on the manufacturer. Every fuel cell car comes off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting its life to only around 10 years. Much shorter than a batteries lifespan. Ironically, the battery in a fuel cell vehicle is the longest serving part of the car.
Hydrogen fuel will always cost significant more than charging a BEV because not only do you have to re-sell hydrogen with profit margins and all, you also have to use 3-4 times the same electricity from the same power grid in order to make hydrogen.
Its probably also worth noting the lithium batteries do not explode, they smoulder for hours releasing smoke before you see visible flames. But if we're talking about safety, BEV's are the clear winner. In comparison to Hydrogen is actually explosive
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to the CSIRO, and several Nobel prize winning economists, all of which have written to the current prime minister, (all of which have been ignored), renewables has the potential to be a 3 trillion dollar industry over the next 5 years in Australia, it would also provide 3x more jobs per dollar spent as a covid recovery strategy when compared to a “gas lead recovery”, it also has higher GDP potential as the majority of gas profits go overseas, not to Australians, and Gas energy is current the most expensive form of energy in Australia.
None the less we’re committing a generation to a gas lead recovery because the PM put together “covid recovery panel” stacked with no scientists and barely any economists (who complained about the process and conclusions being be). But stacked it with gas, mining and oil executives, and weirdly a Saudi oil exec? Infact the board wasn’t chaired by an impartial third party or even another politician but by a gas industry executive. So why is it surprising in the least their response was “just give me the money”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are some problems with that. In terms of $$ investment in Hydrogen technology vs battery technology, Hydrogen wins out by a long margin. They also have a much more positive media spin which is why you'll be suprised below with some misconceptions about EV"s people have lied to you about and the downsides of hydrogen everyone hid from you.
1.) Hydrogen is not a far better technology. Fuels cells are notoriously slow at producing electricity, hydrogen, as a base of physics not technology, requires 3-4 times as much electricity to produce per miles worth than batteries need to charge, aside from that they are incredibly short lived compared to batteries and whilst hydrogen is lightweight, it takes up an incredible amount of volume. meaning the cars are compromised in terms of both cabin space and boot space which is a big hit to their practicality compared to BEV's. No amount of technology can change the amount of volume an element takes up. This is also reflected below.
2.) Hydrogen costs so much for fuel for multiple reasons. reason A.) is because it requires more energy to produce. As a matter of physics you need to expend the energy to break the chemical bonds between molecules to separate the hydrogen. This already is less efficient that a battery car doing this alone. Then you need to expend more energy to compress it to 32 times the pressure of a big steel BBQ gas bottle. Which again, is less efficient than BEV's on its own. Then you have to transport the hydrogen to the end uses which is.. once again.. less efficient than a BEV on its own. What that means is that if you were to put in 100kWh to create hydrogen by the time it gets to the wheels you'd only have at best (not realworld) 30kWh at the wheels. But put it into batteries and you get (real world) around 80-90 kWh at the wheels. This means you are paying ALOT more for the energy alone, yet alone the equipment used to create the hydrogen, store the hydrogen, compress the hydrogen and transport the hydrogen.
2B). It has to be distributed. Nobody is going to make hydrogen for free. So not only does it cost way more to produce it, it has to be sold from the maker at a profit, inclusive of wages, logistics, etc, to distributors. I.e. fuel stations who then have to put a profit markup ONTOP of that to sell it to you. This means hydrogen will always be around 20x more per mile than BEV's and even if you could make you own and you got all the equipment for free to do so, it would still cost around 3 times as much per mile to create
1
-
1
-
@kanedanoglory So i'm going to go through that paragraph by paragraph.
1.) refuelling isn't a big advantage, especially for hydrogen. Firstly, BEV's mostly always charge from home with even a wall outlet being able to charge it enough for a daily commute whilst you're asleep. Meaning you spend 0 hours per day getting fuel or charge typically. Meanwhile the average person spends 16-17 hours per year getting fuel, hydrogen included. The other problem is that fuel stations cannot hold alot of hydrogen at high enough pressures for the same reason hydrogen cars cant. Meaning only around a few thousand hydrogen cars are on the road in California and they have 47 hydrogen fuel stations and people cant get fuel. Lots of reports of people showing up, only for the fuel station to not have enough hydrogen to fill up their car. In reality a fuel station can only store enough hydrogen to fill up 2-3 hydrogen cars at best. So even if most fuel stations took to supplying hydrogen, you'd have to triple the amount of fuel stations to supply even as many hydrogen cars on the road as there are BEV's on the road. thats VERY costly and alot of building. and thats not going to happen.
2.) Unfortunately things cannot ALWAYS be improved with efficiency. There is a thing called the second law of thermodynamics which gives an upper limit to efficiency for any given system. Hydrogen has an upper limit much lower than that of BEV's. Sorry to burst that bubble. as an example, hydrogen is not found naturally in its pure state on earth. You have to separate it from something, most commonly hydrocarbons (also known as fossil fuels), or water. to do that you have to break the chemical bonds binding it to the other elements. That requires energy. energy you wont see again because its been used to break those bonds. There is no way around that. You want to break chemical bonds it takes energy. full stop. those bonds require a particular amount of energy to break. full stop. meaning you will always waste that particular amount of energy getting hydrogen. full stop. Hydrogen is always punching up to its theoretical limit already. Seeing has its been in development since the apollo missions. Sorry, they aren't going to be making any giant leaps in efficiency for hydrogen.
3.) Costs will improve, but not by much. Economy of scale doenst ignore the fact you need 3 times more electricity for hydrogen than for BEV's, meaning BEV's will ALWAYS be at least 3-4 times cheaper per mile, But you will always have that re-sale chain through the distributors, water usage transport. as scale increases, transport, and capital compensation reduce, but don't just disappear. For hydrogen to be anywhere even near the cost of a BEV's, companies would have to be selling hydrogen for less money than they spend making the stuff. which is never going to happen. There isnt any way around it. its always going to be more expensive. everyone wants a profit, and everyone has to pay their staff, their utilities etc, that doesnt dissipate with economy of scale. employee's dont get cheaper because you have more of them, electricity doesn't get cheaper when you use more of it. Both still need to be paid.
4.) I am not suggesting that hydrogen technology will remain stagnant, however there isnt much more they can do. the biggest achievement for Hyundai and Toyota on the horizon at the moment is they're trying hard for a fuel cell that will last 200,000 miles and they're hoping to have it by the end of 2022 and start producing it by the end of 2023. But that's the most exciting thing happening. Realistically, any advancements in hydrogen cars will come from the batteries and the electric motors. If batteries get smaller, they can fit a tiny bit more fuel in. Sometimes you have to face reality, there isnt much going for hydrogen.
5.) distribution. you dont really have to distribute the batteries, they come with the car, thats rolled into the distribution of the cars which both ICE and Hydrogen do. Seeing as they sell them and all.... But you have to distribute hydrogen, and that costs hydrogen money. I know you distribute fuel too, that also costs you money. thats why fuel prices can change from area to area to reflect the cost of transporting the fuel to those fuel stations.
6.) Cost of electricity. The cost of electricity is predicable. If they're surprised by it they havnt looked into it enough. never the less and extra $20 for electricity per week compared to the $150 they'd be spending of fuel is still a big cost saving, and coupled with the fact that they dont need servicing its doubly so. For the average commuter, it becomes cheaper to buy, charge and maintain a Tesla model 3 over 5 years than it is to buy, fuel and maintain an entry level Toyota Camry over 5 years.
6.1) the price of electricity is going up. but that isnt something that exclusively hurts BEV's. Seeing as green hydrogen uses 3-4 times as much grid electricity per mile as a BEV does, from the same power grid. a rise in the cost of electricity hurt hydrogen costs 3-4 times a much.
7.) Fuel cell tracks are a scam. Firstly there was Nikola trucks which actually WERE a scam. Then there is Hyundai Xcient hydrogen truck. Let me break down how that goes. despite also have a small 150,000 miles shelf life, it also uses 2 fuel cells, a 75kWh lithium battery (same size as is in a long range model 3) a 6 speed transmission, and over 800L of fuel tanks almost double that of a regular semi. This means they've pushed the wheel base out and raised the bed to accommodate all the fuel giving it a horrendous turning circle and result in it require a custom made trailer which is reduced in height. Know how far that 800L+ gets them.... only 400 miles
It gets better too, do you know what the maximum Unloaded speed is? less than freeway speeds, 875km/h (52mph) So it only gets 400 miles, has a bad turning circle, needs a custom trailer, only lasts 150,000 miles and cant even reach freeway speeds all whilst costing more to operate per mile than a diesel truck.... bargain
Now lets look at the Tesla Semi, it gets 500 miles to a charge, has a lifespan nearing 1 million miles, can get to freeway speeds fully loaded at a rate which would out drag most cars, and costs around 10x less per mile than diesel. also whilst having absolutely no need for a transmission (servicing costs saved) and doesn't have a reduced turning circle, and can take standard trailer.
seeing the pitfalls of hydrogen trucks yet? as I said, hydrogen takes up a HUGE volume and fuel cells have notoriously low power output. meaning no freeway speeds to heavy vehicles. they cannot supply enough power to cruise at those speeds. it also means they need big lithium batteries anyways.
1
-
1
-
@kanedanoglory I'm going to go through your comment like I did the last.
1.) range does drop in winter, however modern EV's such as one sold in the Q3&4 2021 onwards have something called a heat pump. Traditionally EV's used resistance heaters to heat the cabin and batteries. A heat pump is far far more efficient to use than a resistance heater meaning the drop in range during winter has been shown to reduce to less than 5% due to this. The only other losses would be from driving through snow which has added resistance shared by all vehicles equally.
2.) Hydrogen is affected by the cold. Hydrogen, like EV's dont produce alot of heat, therefore they need to use a heating element. They need the heat to keep the water liquid in their exhaust lest they risk blocking it due to icing and thus, no more power for the car, they also need it to keep their lithium batteries warm (yes, hydrogen uses lithium batteries, similar size to a plug in hybrid battery). and to keep the cabin air warm. This, like with EV's means that they need to use more hydrogen to travel the same distance.
3.) You dont typically have to worry about charging. This is concern most people who have never owned EV's have but most people who do, dont. Thats because most EV's such as Tesla's give you all the information. remaining range, how long you need to spend at different chargers, if you happen to go further than your range it will route you past chargers automatically and tell you how long you need to be there for. yada yada yada. Surprise surprise, people have thought of that incredible simple and useful feature to put into EV's. ground breaking.
Also coupled with the fact that most people dont have daily commutes ranging from 250-400 miles. Meaning you never have to worry about charge. You just plug it in when you get home and wake up to a full tank. evey. single. morning. so there is LESS to worry about than ICE or hydrogen as you dont have to watch your fuel guage, work out the best time to get fuel and where to get it, etc etc.
4.) If he's claiming he gets 250 miles of range and he's stopping at 2,000/12=166 miles then he's charging on average when he gets to 30% charge remaining. He could do less. But lets say in winter you do a 18 stops at 39 minutes for charge, you've spent around 7 hours charging for your road trip. Most people drive these distances maybe once per year AT BEST. Meanwhile the average person spends 16-17 hours per year getting fuel. So seems like a fair trade to me.
5.) the cost per mile is from a super charger. Super chargers cost more money than regular electricity you get from your house. Due to needing to make a profit and all that. maybe something to consider before you use it to base a lifetime cost analysis.
6.) You do save money. I own a model 3, let me break down my expenses. I pay around $28c per kWh. I drive around 120km per day with an odometer average consumption of 0.13kWh/km so thats 15.6 kWh per day. pretty much 365 days per year. That costs me $4.37 per day in electricity. The model 3 doesnt require any regular maintenance ever for the warranty. So regular services are out as saved money. EV's also their breaks less than ICE since they have regen braking meaning brake pads last 5x longer on average and the car itself cost me $60k to buy. (Australian).
If I wasn't getting that I was getting a Toyota Camry base model which was 7.5L/100km consumption with an average fuel price of $1.42/L and purchase cost of $31k. Servicing would cost around $250 for regular services every 10k km. $1,400 for major service every 100,000km and brakes cost around $700. Every 80k on average for the Camry and 200k for the Tesla.
I average around 50,000 km/year driving. so lets add that all up. this is what we get. Tesla is ((0.13*0.28c)*50,000)+((700/200,000)*50,000) = $1,995 per year. The Camry is ((0.07*1.42)*50,000)+(((250*9)/100,000)*50,000)+((1,400/100,000)*50,000)+((700/80,000)*50,000)=$7,232.5 per year.
Meaning the Tesla represents a yearly saving of $5,237.5 for me. Over 5 years thats a saving of $26,187.5. SO anything over 5 years, the Tesla is cheaper to buy and maintain. It also comes with far better features, performance and luxury and comfort than a base model Toyota Camry.
If you want to work out how much you'd save yearly then the savings per km is 10.5c per km. Add up your annual mileage and you'll get your savings.
So yea, EV's represent a big cost saving kiddo.
7.) Hydrogen might be the most abundant element in the universe but it is one of the hardest to get in its pure form on earth. as i've said, although its abundant, its not readily available in its pure form on earth anywhere. meaning you have to extract it which takes energy.
8.) "so what if it takes more energy to create green energy" so what? really? you're using 3 times more dirty energy production to create your "green" hydrogen. Thats burning 3-4 times more coal per miles and you think thats somehow more green?! think boy!
9.) there are actually 5.6 million Ev's on the road today. not 200,000.
10.) Modern BEV lifespans are up around the 400,000-500,000 mile mark depending on your battery size. The average ICE lifespan is 250,000 miles and Hydrogen is 150,000 miles. Your BEV will last you ALOT longer than 10 years considering the battery warranty alone is 8.
1
-
@kanedanoglory The warranty on the battery is 8 years. As for batteries making sense? they are far better suited than hydrogen for a multitude of reasons. BEV's have more practical cabin and boot space, they are faster, they cost significantly less to operate they last longer, you have to spend 16-17 hours per year getting fuel instead of charging from home and only if you have a hydrogen pump nearby and that fuel station hasnt already topped up 2-3 hydrogen cars already that day. So please, explain how any of that sound convenient to you, having a slower, more expensive shorter lives impractical vehicle you cant readily fill up or fill up from home that costs significantly more to operate and performs worse. I'd love to hear that explanation.
And i'm not a fan boy, I just think hydrogen is rubbish because when you break down the numbers.. IT IS. Like any Engineer I break down the numbers. Hydrogen doesnt make sense. its inconvenient and shouldnt be used in vehicles. BEV's have alot of advantages over ICE. They also have alot of pitfalls. But you have to level that out with how you actually use a vehicle. But buy in large for the average person in city/suburbs/rural urban fringe, BEV's offer a much better alternative simply from a convenience and costs standpoint.
I've shown you the numbers. and the maths. Ive given real world examples and you refuse all of it out a breath-taking feat of cognitive dissonance. Maybe reflect on everything I've said. with this summary below.
-Hydrogen vehicles not only cost more to buy but costs signficantly more than even ICE vehicles to fuel
-they only last around 150,000 miles, ICE average 250,000 miles and BEV's being sold today are rated to 400,000-500,000 miles. with BEV's having an industry standard 8 year battery warranty many times with unlimited miles.
-Hydrogen cars only get about as far as similar sized BEV's however BEV battery density is improving whilst you cant reduce the size of an ELEMENT. Hydrogen might be lightweight but it takes up an incredible amount of volume. This means a sedan like the Mirai which is a Model S or BMW M5 sized car, has less cabin and boot space than a Toyota Yaris No matter what way you cut that, thats bad.
-Hydrogen is not nearly as green and requires far more infrasturcture than BEV's even from an energy standpoint
-This means Hydrogen will always be expensive even if you didnt have so many middle men re-selling at a profit.
-You have to spend 16-17 hours per year getting fuel for you hydrogen car provided you can even find a fuel station for it. whilst BEV's charge from home wasting 0 time.
-Hydrogen fuel stations can only carry enough fuel to fill up 2-3 hydrogen cars. Heres another real world example, im Melbourne Australia Toyota opened a hydrogen production plant the size of a factory. It can only produce enough hydrogen to fill 8 Toyota Mirai's per day for a whole factory. Look me in the eye and tell me thats convenient.
-The cost to retrofit a fuel station to dispense hydrogen is around $1.2 million whilst to build a bank of 4 superchargers only costs $0.25 million or $250k.
So not only is hydrogen slower, shorter lived, more expensive, less practical with its space, and less convenient even if you happen to find somewhere to refuel it. But building the infrastructure isnt going to happen because its too expensive to service only a couple of cars per day, and it isnt even as green as battery electrics.
sorry but hydrogen is crap. thats what the numbers say. thats what reality says. and it doesnt even get better when you look at trucking.
give it up, hydrogens shit.
1
-
1
-
@kanedanoglory and if anyone is also following this convo, few things you should note.
1.) in terms of consumer demands, BEV’s have better performance, equal or better range, cheaper operation, longer operational lifespan, and better cabin and boot space and you can charge from home instead of finding non-existent fuel stations. So you decide what consumers would want more.
2.) if we flicked a switch and went to BEV’s overnight the grid would not be able to cope yes. But that’s a moronic and disingenuous argument which shows deep bias. Firstly, even if every commuter demanded and EV tomorrow, it would take 15-20 years to supply all those vehicles, but we all know that won’t happen so even optimistic estimates in EV adoption is at 50 years for full market penetration. Meanwhile the grid is always increasing. Infact the energy has never failed to double roughly every 20 years since the first power station went online. Think about how much electronics we use now vs even 20 years ago. By the time we have full market penetration of BEV’s the grid will be more than capable of handling that many EV’s.
3.) assuming EV’s use more energy because they run on “coal” is a deeply flawed and desperate argument. Firstly, he’s referring to coal power plants. Electricty from a coal power plant isn’t different to any other kind of electricity, 1kWh is 1kWh, no more or less, so it can’t use more energy simply because of where it comes from. Second is that hydrogen also need electricity from the same source and it also needs 4 times as much per mile so running hydrogen plants would result in higher grid demands from the same energy sources which shows just how ignorant he is.
4.) whilst you can generate and store hydrogen during the day it’s a bad idea. Why? Efficiency. If you made 100kWh and stored it as hydrogen to put into cars, by the time you get it to the wheels you’d only have 20-30kWh, and you’ve thrown down the drain 80-70% of that solar energy you worked so hard to produce. Put it in a BEV, and you’d only lose 5-10%. Big difference. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kanedanoglory okidokey, so to respond to your large comment above finally.
1.) its about selling products. A scam would be if those products were defective, which they are not. you seem to think having an investment such as, designing and making a product and wanting it to succeed for your company and all the people who work and have livelihoods based on said company, is automatically a scam. think for yourself.
2.) "America's biggest Mooch" which must be why he knowingly went out of his way to not only MAXIMISE the tax's he owed to the government, but then also paid the single largest tax payment in history anywhere. Such a mooch... again, think for yourself.
3.) You want to talk about seeding doubt. Look at what the media does to batteries:
-"tesla's run on coal thus worse than cars" not true, even in the US your main energy source is GAS, additionally even if it was 100% coal its still greener than ICE cars.
-"EV's are a fire hazard" also false, statistically they are 11 times less likey to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles but they are also 5 times less likely to combust in an accident also.
-"batteries only last a couple of years" false, EV batteries being sold today are designed to last up to 400,000-500,000 miles with new technology on the way. thats double the average lifespan of a ICE.
But on the other hand, lets review Hydrogen,
-in every media report, was suggested to be the "fuel of the future" and is still touted by media as such today.
-No one mentions the huge amount of space hydrogen takes up and the impact that has on the cars practicality.
-"hydrogen can go further than BEV's" wrong, they can go as far and often less than BEV's
-"you can just add more hydrogen to go further" wrong, hydrogen takes up volume, you have no space left for more fuel.
-Nobody mentions that fuel cells only last 150,000 miles.
-nobody mentions that the fuel cap has an expiration date printed on it for 10 years service life! imagine if that was on a BEV's, the media would have a field day!!!
So you think there is some kind of disinformation compaign against hydrogen and for BEV's. Guess again, its quite the opposite, Hydrogen lobbyst want you to think that to give them the undog persona. But you know who wants Hydrogen. BIG OIL because most hydrogen is made with fossil fuels and the only way to dispense hydrogen is at a fuel station, which fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on
once again, think for yourself
4.) When the Russian Afghan war was raging, ELON MUSK WAS 8 think for yourself. show me you have a brain!
5.) Lithium doesnt explode because its bumped or wet. it ignites when exposed to air. Typically in batteries the lithium is safe. the only reason you heard of them going off on planes is because samsung made a very very VERY poor cheap and nasty cellphone battery which would break open due to cyclic thermal expansion and contraction which would break its foil lining (like i said. cheap and nasty). and as i mentioned before, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE.
6.) The majority of lithium in the world is currently supplied by AUSTRALIA which is one of the US's biggest allies. What king of bullshit are people feeding you? additionally the Nevada factory is going to start its own experimental lithium mining called clay extraction which would make Nevada the worlds largest producer of Lithium.
7.) There are gigafactories in Nevada, Texas, New York, China and GERMANY who are decidedly known for NOT being careless with worker safety.
THINK. FOR. YOURSELF
8.) so even if it is engineered out, the fact that Lithium has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous mean we shouldnt use it. thats why you'd rather drive a car using the most explosive and easily combustible gas known to man in a pressure tank pumped to 700 bar. With the pressure of the tank itself being more than a hand grenades worth of explosive yeild and the gas inside being around half a kg of TNT worth? (a hand grenade is 0.06kg of TNT).
You dont even follow your own logic you numpty. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
9.) Hydrogen is the scam. It has more explosive yeild. takes more energy to make, uses fossil fuels to do so, is less green and less practical and doesnt last as long, they're trying to push it so hard they're giving away $15k of free fuel to people who want to buy one. open your eyes and think for youself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EarlofBusterbrook Most people who drive electric cars, especially some of the performance Tesla cars, say its not like any other driving experience they've ever had. Utter silence, instant peak torque at 0 rpm - 1,200,000 rpm Meaning at any point around a corner, peak torque as fast as you can put you foot to the floor. no gear shift nothing. Another part that takes peoples breath away is the centre of mass of the cars, EV's with skateboard designs such as the Tesla range, have their centre of mass around the same height as the axels. So you get the cornering experience of having anti-sway bars mounted to the underside of the car without any of the dynamic suspension drawbacks which gives a really strange and unique feeling to cornering.
People who drive get into these cars for the first time are so taken aback about the experience that there is even a term for it. Its call the Tesla giggle. being the reaction people typically have when driving these cars for the first time or even just sitting in one as someone else drives. A car that is "souless" or doesnt have an amazing driving experience wouldnt have a term for the reaction people have to said driving experience. Tom Pinky is right. Its all you've learned growing up. Just because it isnt what you think makes a good driving experience, doesnt mean it isnt one.
Infact according to consumer reports, the Tesla model 3 got the highest score of any car for driving experience and driver satisfaction in 2021. So both the fact the term "Tesla Giggle" exists and the consumer reports ranking, both directly contradict your assertion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well hydrogen for vehicles isn't exactly the best option. Take the Mirai and the Tesla Model 3 for example. The mirai and model 3 have near identical dimensions, except the Mirai is slightly longer and only 1.4 inches wider and higher. Both have similar weights with the Mirai being only 53kg heavier than the model 3. The model 3 has a range of 325 miles, and the Mirai has a range of 400 miles (75 miles difference).
here is where they begin to differ.
-The Mirai has a 0-60 of 9.2s whilst the Model 3 has a 0-60 of 3.2s. Due to the low power output of fuel cells.
-The model 3 has exceptional handing due to its extraordinarily low centre of gravity thanks to its skateboard battery design. The Mirai is force to mount components up higher to move out the of the way of the fuel tanks. meaning it has worse handling and suffers more risk of roll over in an accident.
-The Miria only has the one boot at the rear which is smaller than the boot you find on a much smaller Toyota Yarris yet alone other cars of its size class (midsized sedan). The cabin space is so small that you cant even fold the rear seats to give better boot space when needed. This is because whilst hydrogen is light weight with the Mirai storing 5.6kg of hydrogen. Its volume is large. For the Mirai to store 5.6kg of hydrogen (or 400 miles worth of hydrogen) it tanks need to total a whopping 147L capacity. That's enormous and takes up alot of the space in the car. By comparison the Model 3 has one of the largest rear boots in its class plus a boot at the front of the car and has class leading cabin space. (the extra front and rear boot room also give it better crumple zone further improving safety).
-Safety, The mirai, whilst alot of work has been dont to bring the tank safety down to on par with ICE cars, or even better in some circumstances, its no where near the level of safety of the model 3. Not just in fire risk, but also due to the reduced crumple zones, and lower centre of gravity, its survivability in an accident is lacking by comparison to the Tesla.
-cost. At current, hydrogen stations which make their own fuel, end up being a whole 8x more expensive per mile than a BEV or in this case, the Model 3. That means if you were to drive 100,000 miles over the life of ownership and it cost you $$3,780 in electricity for the model 3, the Mirai would cost you $30,280 in hydrogen. Not a small thing to swallow for consumers.
-operational life. EV's have come leaps and bounds since the first Nissan leaf and Chevy Bolt were produced. Current EV Technology will see vehicles like the model 3 reach 500,000 miles to a battery life. (which is classed as 30% degradation. i.e. 70% of your original battery capacity remaining). This, for the average person, represents almost 40 years worth of driving. Unfortunately due to the nature of hydrogens interaction with materials, this sort of service life is not yet achievable. with the Mirai's coming out of the factory with expiration dates printed on them. usually giving the Mirai around 10 years of service life before they have to be retired. Which means, very little to no second hand car market making owning a car all the more expensive and un obtainable to low income earners. Further to that the emissions to do with manufacturing and recycling 4 Mirais for every Model 3. seems to be an emissions hazard.
-The grid. Because hydrogen isn't exactly efficient, this means more energy. The only way to make hydrogen is with electricity. Either steam reformation, which creates more emissions than if you had used that gas in a combustion car to begin with, (how do you think the steam is heated) or by electrolysis. This electricity could be used to charge a BEV. Even without taking into consideration desalination of water, liquifying/compression of hydrogen, transportation of hydrogen, if you just make hydrogen then put it directly into a fuel cell to make electricity there is a greater than 50% loss in that process. For example if you put 100kWh of grid electricity into making hydrogen. Once you run that hydrogen through a fuel cell you will have only generated around 45 kWh of electricity. And thats at hypothetical limits of efficiency which aren't realistically achievable. What that means is that if you had 1 wind farm which could power the demands of 100 drivers with BEV's like the model 3, you would need 3 wind farms to power the needs of the same 100 people if they were driving hydrogen instead. That sort of cost for grid construction, upkeep and demand also has to be taken into account.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gundorethemighty 1.) Modern EV lifespans are between 400,000 miles to 500,000 miles or more. which is often more than double the average lifespan of a modern combustion engine, even with all the service that EV's dont need.
2.) true, battery replacements are expensive, good thing you dont have to do them more than every 40 years or more. And still cheaper than buying and installing a brand new engine and transmission.
3.) They dont have high rate of failure. in terms of on the road reliability, they are rated at some of the most reliable vehicles. Not sure what else you'd expect from a machine with 1/1,000th the moving parts of a combustion car. If you look closely, when Carsguide rated the model 3 down for "reliability" after it was listed as number 1 for a good 3 months they initially refused to comment why, when pressed they said it was because of "paint and panel gap issues from the factory floor" which isnt a reliability issue, thats a fit and finish issue, its also something that is fixed by the manufacturer under warranty.
4.)They are EMP sheilded. You do realise that wireless induction motors works by INDUCING A LARGE MAGNETIC PULSE TO DISPLACE MAGNETS right? if it wasnt EMP protected the car would fry itself! infact people are looked into this and measured less magnetic radiation inside the vehicle sitting atop the motor than they did outside the vehicle in background radiation.
5.) They do drive better, thats why the model 3 has the highest rating of any car for driver satisfaction and driving experience. how else could you interoperate that?
6.) what the hell? what kinda noise do you think the car is generating? you think the EV's are equipped with mud tires or something? the road noise, which is the noise of the tires on the roads, is the same as literally any other vehicle. Empirically EV's are quieter on the road than almost any other car. The only variation in that is how much internal noise insulation you have. But it makes little difference since because its so quiet the only think you hear is road noise. Because thats the only sound. Just like how whispers are quite loud at night when you're trying to sleep but not so much at a concert. In fact, some EV's actually use air-bag suspension to try to reduce that road noise as much because there isnt a loud engine to drown out the noise. But for some reason petrol heads like getting their fanny vibrated by an overly loud engine that makes their neibourhood want to flay them in the wee hours of the morning.
7.) you can literally charge anywhere there is electricity.... which is everywhere. I own an EV in Australia and i've never had an issue. I dont even own a long range either. I have a standard range.
8.)You do realise modern EV's have thermal management systems right? they're swimming in coolant fluid to either heat or cool the batteries? you do know that right? SURPRISE!!! Engineers arent idiots afterall!! infact, in terms of reliability, in the cold EV's are far more reliable the ICE vehicles. As Petrol and Diesel need to heat the engine in the cold in order to get the fuel to combust. This often leads to a flat battery as it takes alot off turning over the engine to get it to finally fire and take. EV's have no such problems.
9.) "its just a new thing and will die out like everything else" ahhh. no. EV's have been growing in popularity, literally at an exponential rate, since 2010. thats over a decade and they've shown no signs of slowing down, only accelerating in popularity. so no, it isnt "just a new thing" its been around for a while and is only getting more popular.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You do know that
1.) range anxiety is widely reported almost exclusively amongst people who have never lived with an EV. And less amongst those who do.
2.) the Tesla model 3 has the lowest 5 year depreciation of any car in the market today.
3.) in almost every country EV’s are cheaper to insure than equivalent ICE cars if you find the right insurer, it appears to be only uniquely a UK problem, which insurers have explained is due to the trouble and cost of importing spare parts into the UK. Because of barriers put in place after Brexit.
4.) every insurer and regulatory body has agreed that EV’s are 20-60 times less likely to catch fire than ICE cars. Infact in Norway, nearly 90% of all cars on the road are EV’s but despite EV’s outnumbering ICE’s 9 to 1 in Norway, ICE’s remain the leading cause of car fires in Norway. So no, not a fire risk.
5.) EV batteries are 96% recyclable and there are many many plants set up all over the globe that will buy and recycle your EV battery. Infact the largest EV producer in the world, Tesla, states on their website that they will recycle all their own batteries. And they do if you use their buy back system.
6.) ironically, hybrids are more likely to catch fire than ICE or EV’s. They are also shorter lived than ICE or EV’s, and produce more emissions and cost more to make and run than an EV and have lower crash safety than an EV or ICE. They are truely the worst of both worlds, apart from using less fuel per mile than an ICE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xraylife EV’s also don’t have reliability issues, the coolant thing seems awfully specific, like you’ve made that up but I’ve never once heard that happen before because 1, the electric motors are sealed, 2, they are brushless motors so the brushes don’t wear out, 3 they are permanent magnet motors. So everything you said o highly suspect is BS. Also they don’t weigh half a ton more. They weigh about the same as an ICE car. Case in point the model 3 competes directly with a BMW M3 in features, luxury, size, class, performance and handling. They have nearly identical weights. +\- 5kg.
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kingbeam80ify also again, physics tells us that you can’t achieve the same performance as an EV with hydrogen without sacrificing something EV’s don’t have to. Space, comfort, economy, EV’s get all the performance without sacrificing these things. For a hydrogen car, the physical limit of the amount of energy produced is dictated by the surface area of the fuel cell. It doesn’t produce enough energy to adequately accelerate. Therefore it needs batteries to store and release the amount of energy when required. These are often very small but still larger than a hybrid, but unlike a hybrid they can’t get the raw power from the combustion engine so they’re limited to the battery. The bigger the battery the more power you can output at any one time. This means the car won’t go very fast because of that limitation.
You can do a combination of 2 things to improve performance of hydrogen. Increase the surface area or number of fuel cells, which sacrifices passenger/cabin space or fuel tank and battery storage. Or you can increase your battery size as the cost of cabin space, fuel storage or fuel cell surface area.
That’s why the only hydrogen super car is a 2 door unpractical car that achieves performance parity with Tesla Larges Sedan 4 door model S.
As for handling unfortunately, there is no way to keep the weight anywhere near as low as EV’s can due to the required dimensions and volumes of the fuel tanks and the fuel cells. So they don’t handle as well naturally and are more prone to roll overs
Which brings me to safety, you are travelling with an extremely explosive gas which is contained at pressures exceeding 32x that LPG is stored at and has an atomic size so small it can literally leak through solid steel. So the fuel tanks need to be heavy and well protected, meaning no increased crumple zone like a battery electric, which is less safe. As previously mentioned they are more prone to role overs and have worse handling. Less safe again, explosive gas, not very safe, battery electrics however achieve some of the highest ever recorded safety ratings for their categories.
So where is the advantage for Hydrogen?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Currently there are only around 5 or so cars on the market, all plug in hybrids, which would be more emissions friendly than a pure EV, when based of the national average US grid mix, which works out to be around 500g/kWh of emissions. This means for a diesel, it would have to surpass 98mph (2.4L/100km) or for petrol 84mpg (2.8L/100km). This is based off the energy consumption of a Tesla model 3. All 5 cars of which I could find which equalled or exceeding those fuel efficiencies were significantly smaller than the model 3, so its not comparing apples to oranges. IF you're looking for a mid-sized sedan, there is no Hybrid or ICE competition out there which would exceed the efficiency of the model 3.
This is based off an energy consumption of 130Wh/km for the model 3, 1kg of emissions per kWh for coal, 500g/kWh for Gas, 800g/kWh for petroleum/oil generators, 2.3kg/L of petrol fuel and 2.7kg/L for Diesel Fuel.
From that you can find the average grid mix for the US for 2020, find an average emissions per kWh to be approximately 500g/kWh. Then use the Model 3 efficiency to find the fuel efficiency required to emit the same emissions per km, from either petrol or diesel.
NOTE: This does not include the VERY emissions heavy fuel refining and transportation process. If that was include EV's win out by a significant margin every time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i'm gonna address alot of what you just said. because alot of it is really just inaccurate. Firstly your opening comment about hydrogen taking off. That is actually kinda true. If hydrogen doesnt take off, you dont get alot of market penetration or investment by companies. Which means fewer cars to chose from in the market which means less adoption. Those two things sorta run in parallel to each other. Mocking them as if they're mutually exclusive to one another isnt intelligent or helpful.
Now to the numbered points. (I love numbered points).
1.) Price, Fuel Cell vehicles are definitely not simple. They also still use lithium batteries, (about the size of a plug in hybrid battery). They also have ALOT more parts than a BEV, because despite also having a battery and electric motor, they also need a fuel cell, exhaust system, intake system and fuel tanks. Additionally the construction of the cars arent the expensive part, its the fuel that costs an arm and a leg. at current costing upwards of around 20 x more per mile than a BEV costs, with very little room to become cheaper in the future due to energy requirements.
2.) You cannot fill a hydrogen car to 1,500km. additionally modern rapid chargers can do 20%-80% in approximately 5-10 minutes. Not 30-60 minutes. Let me break down both. The toyotoa Mira which I will use as an example carries a small 5.6kg of hydrogen fuel. But that takes up a whopping 150L of fuel tanks. Which means the small midsized sedan has larger fuel tanks the a Ford F150! This means it has compromised cabin space so much so that you cannot fold the rear seats and its boot is a whopping 100L smaller than a toyota Yaris half its size. You cannot physically fit more fuel tanks on the thing with making it entirely useless as a passenger car. But the Mirai only gets 400 miles, not 1,500. Even hydrogen trucks like the Hyundai Xceint with its whopping 800L of fuel tank capacity, can still only get 400 miles. You're not getting 1,500km out of the thing.
Next there is the charging. Whilst it still stakes 5-10 minutes to rapid charge modern EV's, you dont usually need to do this. Most modern EV's have ranges between 400-300 miles. whilst the average daily commute in the US is 16 miles. for the vast majority of people they just charge their EV's at home whilst they're asleep or otherwise not using it. wasting 0 minutes of their time. Unfortunately for refill hydrogen, you MUST go to a fuel station. Statistically this means owning a hydrogen car will waste 16-17 hours per year getting fuel vs 0 for charging. So Convenience? no.
3)a. Performance? no. Hydrogen fuel cells produce notoriously low power outputs. Hence why they need batteries to store energy. This means most hydrogen cars are very very slow whilst you can get very quick electric vehicles. You dont typically burn out the batteries in alot of these cases either, as the larger the battery is, the more power it can output before damaging the battery. If we look again to a the hydrogen fuel truck the Hyundai Excient. it has two massive 95kW fuel cells. But it cannot get to freeway speeds even without load. They only EVER example of a performance fuel cell car is the Hyperion XP-1. In which it has 3 fuel cells, super capacitors and 2 seats, no boot design. Making it less practical as a daily driver than a Lamborgini Aventador. Yes its still lower off the line than a Tesla Model S which is a 4 door, twin boot large luxury sedan. Additionally there are no on-road examples of the Hyperion to date. Its a concept car only.
3.)b Efficiency. there isnt alot of lost efficiency on an electric vehicle. The weight doesnt impact very much for 2 reasons. 1.) it doest actually carry much more weight than a standard car. that is because whilst it does have heavy batteries, it also doesnt have a heavy engine block or transmissions. and 2.) because of regenerative braking. Just as acceleration requires more energy as weight increases, so does braking. with regenerative breaking you can reclaim up to 90-95% of the kinetic energy of the vehicle. this means adding weight has very little effect to efficiency compared to Hydrogen vehicles or ICE vehicles. The only impact is on rolling resistance which is minimal compared to losses due to accelerating large weight. For most cars they spend the extra energy accelerating the extra mass, and lose all that energy by dumping it into the brakes as heat. For EV's they turn the motor into a generator and reclaim most of that energy instead of dumping it into the brakes.
You also forget that whilst EV's are around 80%-90% efficient overall, Hydrogen fuel cell alone is only 60% efficient. And when you consider the electricity used to make the hydrogen fuel in the first place you're looking at only around 20-30% efficient overall.
4.) 2 things, firstly, Modern Lithium batteries are rated to last around 500,000 miles. Much more than 100,000 miles. Meanwhile modern fuel cells are only rated to last 150,000 miles according to Toyota and Hyundai. Second. aside from having to produce and dispose of MULTIPLE hydrogen cars to meet the lifespan of 1 BEV, lets talk about other environmental factors, ignoring the fact that Hydrogen cars also use lithium batteries. Firstly lets address the fact that the batteries are around 95% recyclable, including all the lithium, cobalt and nickel in those batteries. Second, lets look at the fuel, Hydrogen fuel requires 3-4 times the same grid electricity to produce per mile compared to just using that same grid electricity from the same source to charge and EV. with EV's having the advantage of using home solar. But lets say you're not using Green hydrogen and therefore not using 3-4 times more grid electricity per mile. Then you're getting your hydrogen from Hydro-carbons, aka, fossil fuels in a process that generates more carbon emissions than if you had just burnt the fuel in a generator in the first place.
what is important to remember is that most hydrogen is made this way. Lets look at steam reformation for example. You burn a bunch of natural gas creating emissions, to heat water into steam. Then use that steam to separate more gas into hydrogen and carbon, creating more emissions again. And you think hydrogens more green? nah ah.
5.) Competition, Hydrogen doesnt compete with BEV's.
-They're slower,
-cost 20 x more to operate per mile,
-have significantly less cabin and cargo space, has fewer fuelling opportunities,
-you cant charge it from home some you're forever wasting time getting fuel,
-they're short lived, especially in comparison to BEV's,
-Less environmentally friendly
-Dont get any further than BEV's and in some instances, get less range than similar sized BEV's.
They're just not even in the same league.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JosephHui57 also as Milan said. The hydrogen producer must make a profit. To cover capital expenditure on equipment, land rates, power costs, water costs, staffing, admin, transportation, wages, training etc etc etc. and ontop of all that it needs to make a profit when it sells its hydrogen. Then it goes to fuel stations, who similarly have to make back money on capital costs like buying pumps and the building, staffing wages, and other services. And need to make a profit ontop of that when they sell the hydrogen.
That’s why hydrogen is expensive. It’s triple dipping ontop of 3 times the amount of energy as a BEV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MBarram Again I disagree, You can fit far more than 200kWh into a truck body. For Example, the Tesla Semi has a 500kWh+ Battery pack. Which under load gets the truck 500 miles (around 800km) found through real-world testing. Without sacrificing space and keeping BEV's incredible torque and power characteristics which are very beneficial for trucking.
Hydrogen Trucks on the other hand. The only ones on the market at the moment, Much like the Tesla Semi, are Hyundai's prototype trucks. Currently being tested in a range of locations. These trucks have not one but two massive fuel cells (95kW, by comparison the Mirai has an engine sized 50kW fuel cell) Hyundai's prototype also only goes 250 miles (400km) and stores 32kg of hydrogen fuel (requiring 851L of fuel storage, a typical Semi only holds 450L to 550L of diesel). It also holds 72kWh of batteries, the same size as is found in a Model 3 Long range. Looking at photos of the Hyundai Xcient, you can see all that extra space takes up some of the vertical height of the trailer, whilst in length being almost the full length of the first part of the trailer. Which would have a hell of an impact on turning circles.
Meanwhile if you need more than 800km of range from an Electric Truck, you can like the bottom of the trailers with batteries, more than doubling it range whilst reducing the gross weight limit of cargo it can legally carry in some countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikhiljoshi7486 I covered multiple points. I am also responding on my phone since I’m out doing a 45km hike.
Li in batteries aren’t used up in the storage. The chemistry of the electrolyte is what ultimately does in the battery along with tendrites forming on the anode. Modern EV batteries are around 96% recyclable with nearly 100% of the lithium recyclable. This could have been confirmed with a cursory google search. Before making your comment.
As for the 100 cycles, what fucking rock are you living under. Again a cursory google search shows that modern EV batteries almost all EV manufacturers almost all universally give an 8 year warranty on their batteries. The cycle rating of modern Tesla batteries are 1,500 cycles to a lifetime. For a model 3 with 325 miles that nearly 500,000 miles. At end of like that’s also determined to be at 30% degradation. You’ve only lost 30% of your original range after 500,000 miles. So where you got 10% over 100 cycles that’s beyond me. And whilst steam reformations itself isn’t wasteful and only produces a small amount of carbon, the energy required to heat the steam has to come from somewhere. And it’s usually supplied one of two ways. Electrical heating, by drawing power from the very same grid, or by burning something.
No one is trying to be biased here. Hydrogen just isn’t that green. And the only way you are going to make it green is the same way you are going to make BEV’s green. By making the energy sources green.
The only difference is that you need significantly less green energy for a BEV than for a FCEV. If you had to produce, build and commission 3 times the name plate energy for hydrogen then BEV. That’s a big negative, both financially and emissions wise. If you need 1 windmill to power the needs of 100 BEV, you’d need to build 3 windmills to power the needs of the same people with FCEV’s.
Doesn’t matter which way you look at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But alas, Elon was still right about hydrogen. Even when splitting methane you need at least double the energy per km than battery electric. Which makes it at least twice as expensive even if it didn’t have to be resold twice more. For example the hydrogen producer needs to cover his costs plus add a mark up to sell it to fuel stations then the fuel station covers their cost and add a profit margin ontop of that before it ends up in your car.
Hydrogen will never reach cost parity with EV’s for operational costs.
Then there is safety, electric vehicles are some of the safest cars out there. Much safer than standard combustion cars. Meanwhile hydrogen drives around with tanks full of one of the most explosive gasses known to man, at 32 times the pressure big metal LPG are rated for, a gas which can leak through solid metal and weaken it at the same time.
Then there is performance and handling, hydrogen vehicles, if you want them to run efficient (which means a fuel cell) means they’re slow. Very very slow. Because fuel cells have low power output. Which is a function of the catalytic area available. To get around this they run the electric motor off a small battery bank. In all that means equivalent sized hydrogen vehicles are usually about half a ton heavier than their BEV counter parts, hydrogen vehicles will have a much higher weight and centre of gravity affecting handling and braking, they will be much slower than their BEV counterparts as well.
For example the example the mirai is dimensional similar yet slightly smaller than the model 3 without all the fancy heavy things like heated seats. The model 3 has a nearly 3 times faster performance, much better handling, more than 20x cheaper per km, is a safer vehicle, weighs nearly half a ton less, and not only has a boot at the front and the back, whilst the mirai only has a back boot, (btw the rear boot in the model 3 is larger despite the model 3 being dimensionally smaller) but the rear seats in the model 3 are able to fold while the mirai they can’t.
Which seems trivial until you realise that’s because there is significantly less cabin space in the mirai meaning there isn’t enough space to fold the rear seats down.
So less performance, handling, safety, usability and higher operating costs. But hydrogen people say “range, it’s the range you get with hydrogen”. For all those draw backs, the mirai only has 75 miles more range than the model 3 to a tank. Only 75 miles.
Hydrogen are not anywhere near competitive with BEV’s in the domestic passenger vehicles market. Sorry. Elon was right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@orlovskyconsulting Comment 3/3. I was not concerned with the cost of manufacture. I am concerned with the cost of fuel. Hydrogen is not found naturally in its pure form. You have to split it from something like water, ammonia or hydro-carbons (fossil fuels). This process requires alot of electrical energy from the power grid. It then needs to be compressed, then transported then used in a hydrogen vehicle. (if splitting from hydrocarbons, you are also releasing carbon into the atmosphere by making the hydrogen).
Hydrogen is expensive because this process is expensive but lets look at just the electrical costs as a baseline comparison before we start adding other stuff in. Lets start with 100kWh from the grid. If you supply that to hydrogen production plant, at best you'll get an efficiency of hydrogen product of 70%. So now you have 70kWh of hydrogen. You then need to compress it to store it, maybe even liquify it. This is 80% efficient (assuming you use some of that power to compress it otherwise you'd be cheating) so you now how 56 kWh of hydrogen. Then you have to transport it presumably from a hydrogen powered truck which has an average of 15% loss meaning you now have 47.6kWh of hydrogen. Then you put it into a hydrogen vehicle. The fuel cells only operate at around 60% efficiency so of the 100kWh from the power grid you put into making, compressing and transporting the hydrogen, you only get 28.6 kWh of electricity to the electric motor in the hydrogen car. not very efficient.
If you look at EV's, if you supply it with 100kWh to charge it has a charging efficiency of 98% meaning you now how 98 kWh of energy in the battery. And thats where i'll stop. Because the discharge, the inverters and electric motor after that point are identical on the Mirai and the Tesla model 3.
That means to go the same distance the Mirai needs 3.4 time more electricity from the same grid than EV's need.
So on power costs alone, no matter what you do, in electricity prices alone hydrogen will always cost 3x more per mile.
Then you have to realise that whilst EV's only buy the electricity, for hydrogen you have to pay for 3 times the electricity, plus the water/ammonia/hydro-carbons. Plus the transportation, plus the suppliers profit mark-up ontop of facility overheads, staff and logistics. Not only that but then you have to pay for the fuel stations profit mark-ups ontop of that to cover them buying the fuel, their overheads and costs, plus they have to make a profit all before it gets to you. Meaning that hydrogen will always be significantly more expensive to drive than an EV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regenerative breaking is more than 90% efficient. This works out that if you had two identical vehicles, one being 300kg heavier than the other, the additional energy used by the heavier vehicle by the time it comes to a stop, would be the same as 2 AA batteries. not very much at all when you're taking battery packs between 50-100 kWh. As milan Swodoba said, rolling resistance has a very small coefficient. usually between 0.03 and 0.06 and as low as 0.01 for eco tires. For the heavier vehicle, the addition 300kg would only add a force of 90N if your coefficient was say, 0.03. with the tires fitted to EV's typically that would be closer to 0.01 which is 30N. (the same force as 3kg in your hand for reference (or 6.5 lb if you're American)). which is understandably very little.
finally there is the other point that Milan mentioned. Of the two, battery and Hydrogen vehicles, Hydrogen is the heavier vehicle. This is mostly due to the reinforcement and protections in place to protect the fuel tanks in the Hydrogen car during collisions. its a lot of extra, high strength steel in the chassis. This is where the majority of the weight comes from.
Recently, Toyota drove the Mirai 1003 km through France on a single 5.6kg fuel tank (the tank is 147L). This represented an average of 0.2 kWh per km. and whilst Toyota gives you the exact start time, they dont mention the finish time. If you look at Toyotas video you can see the dash at the finish line and it says 3.59. It is also dark and on the day they ran the test, it didnt get dark until well after 9pm, so we can assume its 3.59 am. This means it took them over 22 hours to travel 1003km, which works out to around 45km/h average travelling speed.
A model 3 would have an energy consumption of 0.095 kWh/km at 45 km/h. (model 3 and Mirai are similar sizes aerodynamically and also similar weights with the mirai weighting only 53kg more than the model 3 (the model 3 also has far more luxury features which add significant weight to the car). So they should have about the same rolling resistance and energy consumption, give or take. This suggests that the fuel cell is only around 47% efficient. They also used green hydrogen which is made via electrolysis. Which is only around at beset 75% efficient. All this means is that the fuel used to travel 1003km, required 277 kWh of electricity from the same grid that charges the Tesla to make enough fuel for the Mirai to travel 1003km at 45km/h. The model 3 on the same energy, also travelling 45km/h can drive over 2,900km on that 277 kWh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually hydrogen is extremely unstable. Large lithium batteries are around 95% recyclable, and whilst you might not thing efficiencies dont matter, a typical home solar array (the larger kind you can have on the roof of your home) would take 2-3 months of non-stop, sunny summer days to produce a single tanks worth of hydrogen. you would also need a large industrial set up to store the hydrogen as it can leak through solid metal and weakens the metal as it does so. You would also need to have a compressor an odd 200 x larger than a typical domestic air compressor you see trades use at worksites. all that is VERY expensive, for a car that lasts 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV, which you'd only be able to fully refuel once every 2-3 months, that only gets around 400 miles, when you could charge your EV with a single days solar, have none of that equipment set up or cost, that will last 2-3 times longer, is faster, has better cabin and cargo space...
its not practical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hope not. (also Australia) aside from the fact that Australian markets are leaning more towards EV's with the most popular car being sold in Australia in the first quarter of 2022 being the Tesla Model 3 (even in Victoria despite them being Taxed for no logical reason ). But more that a Hydrogen economy in Australia is a codeword for a Gas economy. Most hydrogen around the world is made with natural gas, coal and oil. The first two, Australia has alot of. Creating green hydrogen is extremely energy intensive. You need around 56kWh of electricity to produce just a single kilogram of hydrogen, of which a hydrogen car like the Toyota Mirai carries 5.6kg of. The Mirai has a range of 640km. So 1kWh of grid electricity only gets you 2km or so. Compared to battery electrics where 1kWh of electricity will get you between 7-8km. If we were producing green hydrogen it would cripple our energy grid faster than BEV's ever could. But we're more likely to produce hydrogen using gas and coal which creates more emissions than using the gas in an ICE vehicle in the first place or coal for electricity.
Aside from the fact that Hydrogen cars first hit the mass market only 2 years after the first BEV hit the mass market. As of 2021, you had a whopping 3 different hydrogen cars to chose from. as of 2022, you now have 2. The market offering dropped by a whole 3rd. The only pace in Australia to fill a hydrogen car is Altona in Melbourne so you cant go further than around 300km from Altona before turning back to refuel. The price of hydrogen is far exceeding that of even petrol yet alone batteries which are an order of magnitude cheaper again. Their lifespan is half that of a combustion engine whilst BEV's are double that of a combustion engine (contrary to popular belief). Battery electrics also have better performance, safety, cabin space and boot space.
Australia should not be happy to be producing dirty fuel to supply a dying industry so that the government can indirectly prop up fossil fuel companies.
Another reason a gas lead recovery and a hydrogen economy in Australia should be TERRIFYING to everyone with the ability to vote, is that most global powers are talking about a Carbon Tarif which is, the goods and services from your country are tariffed in proportion to your emissions and environmental policies. Less green energy, more coal and gas burning, including using it to make dirty hydrogen, means that our goods and services are less competitive on the global market. It will damage our economy. BADLY and this isn't a secret either, the government knows this being being pushed. But they wanted a "Gas lead recovery" anyway, despite world economic experts saying the renewables industry in Australia is a $3 trillion industry and would generate 12 times as many jobs as a "gas lead recovery". If the global leaders go ahead with a carbon Tarif, expect to see Australian businesses and agriculture failing and cost of living increasing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UghTech ok, so the metric system is based on something called CGS, which was meter, gram, second. however when creating the SI units off of these CGS units, it was noted that when linking chemical and electrical energy units with mechanical energy units for a cohesive system, the result was that either the mechanical energy units were inconveniently small or the chemical/electrical energy units were inconveniently small. This was overcome by basing Kg as the unit m, kg, s for SI units.
Another way of thinking of it is if you are working out force or stresses you can use m, kg to get newtons and newton/meters, or you can use mm, kg to get kN or kN meters. They opted to move from grams to kilograms to keep the overlapping units reasonable as kg is much easier to measure without being impractical.
Keeping in mind the use of meters, grams, seconds were widely used at the time they created the SI unit system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhardman1964 hydrogen will do little to encourage desalination. Because desalination built to supply hydrogen, will go to hydrogen. It won’t be utilised else where especially if used in vehicles.
Energy storage is well and dandy but you need to look at the applications. Renewables suffer from 2 problems. Intermittency and curtailment. To overcome both 2 strategies are usually adopted in conjunction with one another. 1. Is diversification. I.e not putting all your eggs in the same basket. You distribute your solar and wind farms over different places significantly spread apart. If it’s cloudy in California, it’s probably sunny in Arizona. If there is no wind in Texas, there’s a good chance it’s windy in Colorado for example. You also diversify the types of renewables. Having wind, solar, geothermal, etc all working together. 2. Is energy storage. Unlike what most people thing this isn’t to store days worth of energy, and it isn’t a backup, it’s to capacitate the energy fluctuations in renewables. For example, if demand is 200MW and wind is producing 212MW, you put 12MW into a battery, when they’re under producing 188MW later on, you put 12MW back into the grid from the battery. This prevents curtailment. Which is when renewables like wind and solar produce too much or too little, they are usually shut down and all that energy is wasted. Batteries allow them to continue making energy for longer as well as providing rapid frequency response which is another issue.
The problem with hydrogen however is that you lose 55% of your energy doing that. So for the purpose of capacitation it’s not really applicable to the job. If you’re over producing 12MW let’s say for one hour and you put that into hydrogen, when you’re later under producing 12MW, you only have 5.4 MWh to put back into the grid. It’s not applicable. Hydrogen storage might be applicable to things like hospitals and critical industries located in disaster prone areas such as near earthquake zones. Allowing them to keep running if the power fails. Such a use case would be well suited to that.
As for vehicles, Battery electrics offer better efficiency which means less capital projects to infrastructure to meet the energy needs. They’re better performing, have significantly less cost of operation, better handling and better safety, all with more practicality and comfort. For domestic passenger vehicles. Hydrogen just won’t make sense to consumers. You have a hydrogen car and an equivalent battery electric but the battery electric for the same price and size a faster, better handling, cheaper to run, will last longer, is a safer vehicle and has more cabin and storage space to boot. Hydrogen isn’t applicable here. It doesn’t have an edge.
Especially considering developing a charging infrastructure is significantly faster and cheaper than developing a hydrogen infrastructure for refuelling.
1
-
1
-
@seanhardman1964 you don’t need to pump lithium. It isn’t a fuel, you don’t need it for every mile you drive. You just need a couple of kilograms per car. And despite what people say about it, there is plenty of it. Additionally most of the water used in lithium processing is brine. Not fresh water. It’s what they extract the lithium from. It’s also why it’s almost exclusively found in arid regions. You can drink brine and you can’t use it for agriculture.
And you’re talking about a VG or VPP’s (Virtual Grids and Virtual Power Plants) which is a little more complicated than whacking in the biggest batteries you can find. Once again, a 40kWh battery like the lavo isn’t suited to this task due to its power memory issues. As I said before. Hydrogen isn’t a catch all, it has a niche use case like all technologies. And most pertinent to this topic, is that domestic passenger vehicles, isn’t one of those niche use cases.
You could technically run a BEV with an array of super capacitors which have zero degradation, basically unlimited life and can charge and discharge as fast or as slow as you wanted to. So you could charge your EV in minutes and be able to throw down incredible power to the wheels and never need a new battery. Sounds great right?! Until you realise that it would only get you 25 miles even if you stacked the car to the roof with them because they don’t hold a lot of energy.
However they do have their use cases for rapid short discharges. Like power normalising, circuit memory and even in EV’s as a buffer where a few of them are charged with energy continuously, and when rapid acceleration is needed, they output the short Burst of high power output for the acceleration. A power output that would normally damage the lithium batteries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhardman1964 because the efficiency matters. Hydrogen isn’t going to play as big a role as you think it is. It’s not as suitable for a lot of applications as lithium or other methods.
I’m not against renewables. I’m for renewables. But if you have storage that has fast turn over cycles like almost all grid size storage bar pumped hydro, losing 55% of that energy is costly. So is the speed at which hydrogen can be generated and stored at that scale. Slow response times make for a fragile grid. Wasting 55% of that energy is also a big no no, it means you have to produce 80% more energy for the same outcome. Which is saying a lot because renewables like wind and solar have curtailment losses of 10-30%. So using hydrogen as stabilising storage for renewables reliability is a fools errand. Couple that with slow response time and it can’t be used to shore up the grid either.
What grid scale hydrogen storage CAN achieve is low cycle storage. That means backup power for hospitals, army bases, critical industries, etc.
I’ve already explained this. Renewables aren’t bad, hydrogen isn’t bad, it just has its good use cases, and very poor use cases. Just because people invest money in it doesn’t make it a good idea. In the 1930’s and 1940’s people put money into radioactive water filters because they thought the radiation was good for you. Didn’t mean it was a smart idea. A lot of money was put into rotary engines for aircraft, and into blimps. Even look at Mazda’s rotary engine. Great idea, worked fantastic, lots of money invested in it, but had limited use cases and was ultimately canned. Likewise for the opposite. In south Australia they installed the first grid scale lithium batteries. Politicians from the federal government and the opposition criticised that moving saying it was a stupid waste of money. Now it’s SA most valuable grid asset and almost every other state is installing grid scale energy include 2 massing 500kWh lithium batteries into Victoria.
Some things have their use cases. Some things are better suited to better jobs. Unfortunately hydrogen, despite being a very clever technology, has very limited use cases. Not for grid storage, or home storage, not for renewables storage to avoid curtailment and not for grid stability and certainly not for domestic vehicles.
1
-
@seanhardman1964 ok, so firstly I want to start off saying that I have always specifically said hydrogen was ill suited to domestic passenger vehicles. meaning vehicles you and me drive. I agree that large industrial vehicles like excavators, trucking and aircraft would be better suited to hydrogen. But it's just not suited to domestic passenger vehicles. Because most domestic uses of vehicles, people like you and me, dont need to regularly haul large car long distances, we also on average only have to travel around 70 miles for work.
Hydrogen is not well suited for domestic vehicles in comparison to BEV's which are far better suited. BEV's offer better safety, performance, handling, practicality, space, convenience and operation costs when compared to hydrogen. Its just not a competition for consumers when you start comparing the vehicles and its not something thats going to be fixed by technology. its due to physical limitations to do with hydrogen which I will get into detail about in another comment if you want to read it but wont bore you here because this will also be a long comment. I will also defend my thoughts about the economy of scale in that comment as well but suffice to say that its not that I dont think it wont reduce prices, its that I dont think it will make it cheaper than BEV's per mile.
(im going to do the next part in km, because they're my native units. I use miles because everyone on here always seems to be American).
You started talking about the cost of mining and producing lithium and other parts of BEV's compared to hydrogen vehicles. Whilst I cant comment in any competency about the overall environmental impacts, the efficiency I can talk about. These are sunk costs of energy to create the vehicles. Once off for the life of the vehicle. So far I have been talking about operating costs, whats need, ongoing, to operate the vehicles. It is estimated that the energy requirements to manufacture a vehicle is around 2,670 kWh. So how does that stack up to operational costs. Well we know that hydrogen, mostly due to the second law of thermodynamics, isnt very efficient. of the electrical energy provided to make the hydrogen, at best around 30% of that energy actually makes it to the wheels. Meanwhile for BEV's, that number is around 80% or more. So if we assume two identical vehicles in terms of weight, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and both use the same electrical motor, but one is a BEV and the other is a Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle, then they should both need the same energy to drive per mile input to the motor. Lets assume a requirement of a Tesla model 3 at 0.13 kWh/km over the average yearly distance travelled for a US citizen at 22,000 km. That means the motor would need to consume 2,860 kWh of electricity to travel that distance on average. So, knowing how much energy is lost due to inefficiencies, we know that the BEV's would need to draw 3,575 kWh of electricity from the grid, whilst the Hydrogen vehicle would need to draw 9,533 kWh of electricity from the grid. Thats a difference of 5,958 kWh of electricity per year.
Now lets look at the manufacturing costs. it is assumed that the manufacturing costs of a vehicles is around 300 gallons worth of petrol. Petrol having an energy density of 8.9 kwh of energy per gallon means that it takes 2,670 kWh of energy to make the cars.
Now I know you think thats not an issue because renewables are green. but it is an issue. Because you have to built MORE renewables. Building anything has its environmental costs in sourcing materials, land usage, and economic costs. Making a grid 3 times larger so you can drive a vehicle that is slower, less safe, less practical and far more costly per mile to operate doesnt seem like the most efficient solution.
There is also another aspect with manufacturing costs to do with hydrogen. And that is that it doesnt last as long. Modern EV's will last between 30-40 years of driving on their batteries. Much to peoples disbelief the last longer than ICE vehicles despite what they hear from friends. Hydrogen vehicles however come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them. for no more than 10 years from manufacture. So you also have to take into account that you would have to make 3-4 times more hydrogen vehicles for every persons lifetime than BEV's. that means mining the metals, making the batteries, getting the fuel cells.
I'm not saying that hydrogen vehicles dont work. Im not even saying they dont work well. Im saying they're not suitable for domestic vehicles when compared to BEV's.
As for hydrogen production rate vs battery charging rate. Batteries actually win that one. Hydrogen by electrolysis is slow. So is electricity production via fuel cell. As i mentioned before. Hydrogen has slow response compared to Batteries.
1
-
@seanhardman1964 Now for outlining hydrogen vs BEV vehicle suitability's.
For alot of this I will be directly comparing the Toyota FCEV Mirai to the Tesla Model 3 as they are both mid sized sedans, the Mirai is about 1 inch taller, 1 inch wider which is not very significant for aerodynamics but the Mirai has the advantage on space because its 11 inches longer. The mirai also weighs around 100kg more than the model 3. So lets get to it.
Hydrogen vehicles are slow. very slow. The mirai having a 0-60 of 9.2s whilst the model 3 does it in 3.2s. They both operate on electric motors, their weight is very similar and their aerodynamic coefficients aren't very dissimilar either. Hydrogen is slow because of the limitations for the fuel cells. The fuel cell is very slow at making energy. As water is produced on one side, it effectly blocks new air from reaching the fuel cell catalytic area to produce more water and generate more electricity. also coupled with the fact that air is only around 20% oxygen, it cannot produce energy very quickly. It is also directly proportional to the surface area of the catalyser. The mirai's entire engine bay, instead of being used as storage like the telsa, is taken up by the fuel cell in an attempt to maximise its catalytic surface area.
Even then, the flow rate of energy is only just enough to allow the Mirai to cruise and does not provide enough energy to adequately accelerate the vehicle. As such they put around 1.6 kWh of lithium batteries on board. The batteries absorb what little excess energy there is, and output it to the electric motor.
What this means is that if you want the car to go faster you have to do 2 things. 1.) take up space to expand that catalytic surface area or install another fuel cell. 2.) have larger battery storage to allow for a larger power output to the motor.
The physical limitation to hydrogens performance is the Fuel cell and its catalytic surface area. Hydrogens first super car, the Hyperion, has 3 fuel cells on board and replaces the batteries with an array of super capacitors. But you can see from the car how large it is but how little space there is due to the attempts to maximise the catalytic surface area.
now onto space, or practicality. The model 3, has a skateboard battery design. This allows alot of cabin space, alot of boot space with the model 3 have one of the largest boots in its size class as well as allow for the front engine bay to become another boot (called a "frunk"). The Mirai has not "frunk", it has a smaller boot than a Totyota Yarris in a size class well below that of midsized sedan. infact the Yarris has a larger boot by a whole 100L of space. The cabin space is also so small that you can actually fold the rear seats down to try to expand the boot area into the cabin. Something the model 3 can do.
So why so little space despite being a physically larger car than the model 3? This is because hydrogen, whilst has alot of energy per kg. takes up a LARGE amount of space. Hydrogen in the Mirai is compressed to 700 bar. thats 32 times the pressure LPG is stored at in those metal BBQ gas bottles. Its highly compressed. its also incredibly light. Such that the Mirai can travel 400 miles on its takes which equates to around 5.6kg of hydrogen. However 5.6kg of hydrogen at 700 bar also equates to 147L of space. Thats right, the mirai has the largest fuel tank volume of any mid sized or large sedan in history. At 147L. That takes up alot of space. Infact it takes a larger portion of where a tradition fuel tank would go. It also takes up the entire volume where a transmission would normally go meaning you have the centre console bump which rear passengers stuck in the middle hate, as well as the under side of the front of the vehicle. it has 3 tanks. 3. Ontop of those thanks they need to put the batteries somewhere, so they do it in the boot making it significantly smaller. Then they have to put the fuel cell somewhere and thats your "frunk" space completely gone.
hydrogen drive trains take up alot of space. thats why you always see hydrogen advertised for energy DENSITY not volumetric energy density.
That means the vehicles are far less practical than BEV's. BEV's offer more space and better storage and a more comfortable car for passengers, especially adults. Once again its a physical limitation of hydrogen and technology wont help here.
Now we get to handling. Since the base of the vehicle is entirely taken up by fuel tanks, it already had a higher centre of gravity than a BEV with their skateboard battery pack design. Then ontop of that you're putting the fuel cell and batteries ontop. This means that with a higher centre of gravity and higher overall weight, the vehicle will not handle as well as a BEV. Straight and simple. This is again a physical limitation, technology wont help here.
Then there is safety. BEV's are excellent for safety. They have extra crumple zones at the front, rear and sides thanks to the battery pack design, allowing for additional crumple zones increasing survivability. They also have an extraordinarily low centre of mass, which significantly reduces the likelihood of roll over in an accident which also increase survivability. Hydrogen on the other hand, does not have the crumple zones at the front or back or sides. infact the entire drive train only weight around 100kg, fuel tanks included. So where does the rest of the weight come from? chassis reinforcement to protect the fuel tanks containing explosive gasses at 700 bar. The fuel tanks are incredibly safe as long as they dont critically fail. they can handle punctures and heat. Not being torn open in an extreme collision though. with a stiffened chassis to protect the fuel tanks this means less crumple zone to absorb energy which means less survivability.
also it has a higher centre of gravity meaning its more likely to roll over compared to a BEV.
These are physical limitation. Technology could help here but doubtful.
Lastly, cost of operation. This is the cost spent on fuel. Now hydrogen vehicles arent efficient with their energy. You need approximately 3 times more electrical energy per mile than a BEV. This isnt a small amount. Since BEV's. the price of electricity is the only consideration, off the batt we know that hydrogen will always be at least 3 times more expensive per mile than BEV's and that economy of scale wont fix that problem. power companies have already reached scale. The price of electricity per kWh can be assumed to be the same for either the BEV or hydrogen. They will never be cheaper. Not as long as you are converting energy into hydrogen and then hydrogen into electricity. there will always be an upper limit to efficiency thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, it will never be as efficient or more efficient than a BEV. simple as that.
But thats not the only cost. We have to add the cost of water, cost of transportation, Then there is the facility which creates the hydrogen, their overhead costs, maintenance, admin, staff and then finally a profit markup so over all those costs, they still make a profit on their product. Their product is purchased by fuel stations who have their own capital costs, overheads, staffing etc. They have to buy the hydrogen at the cost for the hydrogen plants to make a profit, cover their own costs then add a profit margin ontop of all that to supply the customer with fuel.
This makes it VERY expensive. economy of scale will help a little here but again, it will still never be cheaper than BEV's. they will always be well over 3 times more expensive per miles to operate. thats a physical limitation of their efficient, and again, why the efficiency matters.
1
-
@seanhardman1964 So to review. If someone is in the market for a green car even ignoring infrastructure issues, they have the choice between the Mirai and the Model 3 for example, similar vehicles, similar size similar market. the Tesla has better cargo and cabin space, better acceleration, better handling, better safety and is significantly cheaper per mile to operate. So what does the Mirai have going for it?
The Mirai can be refuelled. which seems good on face value except that you dont get hydrogen to the home. but you do get electricity. When you average daily commute is around 70 miles and the model 3 has a range of 325 miles, it becomes trivial to just plug in when you get home. The average person spends approximately 16-17 hours per year driving to and from, and getting fuel. But with a BEV charging from home thats zero. That means every morning you wake up with effectively a full tank every morning for 0 time out of your day. Sure you do a long trip maybe once or twice a year but with supercharging networks it means you only spend around an extra 1.5 hours for a 1,000 mile road trip each way. Still much better than the 16-17 hours every year to get fuel. This means the BEV is more convenient.
Ok, so in the domestic vehicle market, refuelling isnt really and advantage, what about range?
well the Tesla model 3 has a range of 325 miles, and the Mirai has a range of 400 miles. So for all the significant lack of acceleration, cargo and cabin space, the much higher cost per mile, the compromised safety and worse handling, and 147L of fuel tanks, you only get an extra 75 miles over the Tesla model 3. All whilst considering your daily needs would rarely punch you over 100-150 miles on a battery that can go 325 miles or a tank that can go 400 miles.
The advantage there doesn't out weigh the disadvantages there. not even close.
the the better option for consumers then is clear. The Battery Electric takes every category except for range, but the added rage of hydrogen is barely worth the consideration.
Hydrogen vehicles arent very well suited to the domestic vehicle market. Not in comparison to BEVs.
and to be clear again. Im not saying hydrogen isnt suited to trucking where range and refuelling times are a much greater consideration, or to industrial equipment or air travel etc etc. I'm saying for vehicles you and me drive, there would only ever be 1 reason someone would logically go with hydrogen over Battery electric for their daily driver. That would be that you live somewhere, where you cant charge your car. On the street parking for example. People with driveways, car ports, garages, even apartment multi level carparks can be fitting with charging stations as long as you can convince your super which is getting easier and easier and they become more and more popular. But not everyone will be able to charge from home and those people would likely need hydrogen vehicles. But they would be getting an inferior vehicle and is going to cost them more.
As I keep saying, Hydrogen has its use cases. But its not suited to every application, its not even suited to alot of applications. Grid scale storage isnt a good use case for hydrogen just as domestic passenger vehicles isnt a good use case for hydrogen. There are better options. Thats not to say hydrogen cant be used or isnt going to be used for some situations, like when you cant charge from home. But the majority domestic vehicles wont be hydrogen. similarly, the majority of grid scale storage wont be hydrogen. use cases like hospital backup power would be a good example of where hydrogen would excel. grid storage for grid stability and renewables stabilizing is not a good use case for hydrogen. Power plants are not a good use case for hydrogen, home storage is not a good use case for hydrogen unless the way the grid is regulated is literally entirely changed as we know it. Lithium home storage is much easier to integrate into existing a future grid technologies.
You have to look at the use cases without bias. sure it would be neat to have a one stop energy solution that solves all our grid problems, renewable problems and transport problems. But it doesnt work like that. nothing works like that, nothing ever has.
The power grid has dozens of types of generation depending on what the application and requirements are, balanced on cost and effectiveness (which is how efficient it is which relates to how profitable it is). Even cars arent a one stop. There are diesel and petrol cars, which have different uses and trade offs, there are V engines, Boxer Engines, Straight Engines, Rotary Engines, all with different use cases, and trade offs between benefits and detriments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhardman1964 its not unheard of for fossil fuel companies to make investments in green technologies and make statements about going green to achieve emissions offset regulations. Much low how car manufacturers make "compliance" cars before Tesla started challenging the market. as it stands, the cheapest way produce hydrogen is with fossil fuels. and hydrogen also has to be supplied though their fuel stations. meaning they can keep their fuel monopoly. If you think that doesnt generate a bias you need to reconsider your view of the world.
Lavo, as i've previously discussed, isnt suitable for EV's. This is because their volumetric energy density is much lower than that of a lithium battery, Current EV batteries have around 730 Wh/L volume, Metallic Hydride batteries like the Lavo has as best 420 Wh/L. So a 100kWh batter in an EV using current lithium batteries would take up approximately 138L of space. However if it used Lavo type batteries it would need 238L of space.
in addition, they are also heavier, with EV's current lithium batteries at around 260 Wh/kg, whilst the Lavo has around 100 Wh/kg. So you would need something almost twice a large and twice as heavy for the same energy.
further to that Lavo type metallic hydride batteries have other drawbacks. one being that they have low power output. meaning the car would be slower, they also have whats called chemical memory. Which means they would be horrendously bad for EV's especially with irregular use cases, such as regenerative breaking, changes in traffic on the way to and and the way home, etc.
lastly they also have high phantom drain. with as much as 80% loss of power per month
Lavo are not suited for EV's.
1
-
@seanhardman1964 Australia doesnt have the highest lithium reserves. It has the largest lithium PRODUCTION meaning most of the worlds lithium currently comes out of Australia, which is what I said.
if you're still struggling with that, here is an analogy that might help. Lets say you and your brother are both selling lemons. Your bother has 5 x more lemons than you do because he has more tree's. Your brother is disinterested in selling lemons and only sells around 5 lemons per day. You however really don't want your lemons rotting around the house so you sell more lemons at a cheaper price and you sell 10 lemons per day. Who is the largest supplier of lemons to the market, and who has the largest reserve of lemons?
similarly, Australia is you in this situation, and a host of other places are your brother.
also something to realise is that those are KNOWN accessible lithium mines. Just like with oil, as more demand increases, more stakes are claimed and more lithium mines are established to access lithium. in addition, this does not yet include clay extracted lithium, which if counted would mean Nevada would have the largest known lithium reserves in the world. it doesn't include this because clay extraction is a very new method, the first ever plants to extract lithium form clay haven't even finished being built yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhardman1964 you’re looking at this wrong. Hydrogen isn’t a fuel source. It’s an energy medium. Like water in a nuclear power plant being used to capture heat in the form of steam to run a turbine. That’s not steam power, or water power, it’s nuclear power.
Lithium isn’t a one size fits all. There are hundreds of types of batteries, and dozens of types of lithium batteries. They have their application. But you won’t see “lithium power plants” or battery run agricultural equipment, or plants or ships or trains.
There will always be a range of technologies no one technology is applicable or desirable for all applications. Could you make battery powered trains or agricultural or industrial machinery? Sure, but they’d be shit to deal with and expensive. Hydrogen is better suited to that.
Just like batteries are better suited to domestic passenger cars. Can you use hydrogen? Sure but they’ll be shit to deal with and expensive.
You need to move away from this one ring to rule them all mentality. It’s never happened in human history, and likely never will.
Hell if that’s how the world worked, we’d be on 100% diesel. Diesel cars, trucks, planes, train. There’d be no gas, coal, nuclear, geothermal or hydro powerplants. There’d only be diesel generators. But that’s not what we see. We see petrol cars dominating domestic vehicle markets, we see power grid with mixes of power sources depending on their geopolitical circumstances, the worlds never worked that way. And for a good reason. It’s called optimisation. Using the best thing for the job to get the best outcomes, be it output, safety, economic or a combination of factors. Hell there isn’t even one kind of crop. There never will be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Big oil wants hydrogen you numpty. The majority of hydrogen and the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is with... drum roll please.... FOSSIL FUELS additionally the only way to service people with hydrogen is via fuel satiations, and guess who owns a monopoly of fuel stations? drum roll again please.... "FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES!!* DING DING DING!!! meanwhile battery electric cars can be charged by home solar and even when being charged by the grid, can be charged from home, not requiring a fuel station at all. But you think big oil intentionally shut down their only future market because they want BEV's for some reason? get real dude.
Big oil wants hydrogen, thats why you only hear negative lies about BEV's lies like they are a fire hazard despite catching fire less than ICE cars, that they're short lived despite modern batteries laster twice the lifetime of ice cars. the list goes on.
But you only ever hear positive things about hydrogen, you never hear that they have a VERY short lifespan, that they come off the assembly line with an expiration date on them, that they have so little cabin and cargo space because of the volume requirements of the fuel that you'd have more space in a TOYOTA YARIS than you would in a Toyota Mirai, or that they're excessively slow, excessively expensive and much less green the BEV's.
You can also tell by the fact that Hydrogen gets significantly more handouts than BEV's. for example in some places you can get a brand new Mirai, for around $8k, when its original price without the incentives is more than a Tesla model 3 and you also get $15,000 worth of free fuel when you buy them to try to push them to people. No such incentives for BEV's.
You think big oil are trying to shut it down? open you bloody eyes mate, they're trying to push them down everyone's throats. And they STILL cant compete because they're that bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful more clarifications, thankyou for your response though,
1.) nuclear power still produces low level and high level waste that we still don’t know how to dispose of safely.
2.) a home charger (type 2) charges at 12kW. A model 3 has an efficiency close to 0.2kW/mile a 12kW home charger would charge a model 3 at 60mph. Considering most charging is done at home whilst your asleep, you don’t really have to wait any time for it to charge. Much more time efficient than going and getting fuel.
3.) hydrogen fuel cells last around 1/4 the lifespan of BEV’s you need 3-4 time More grid electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen than you do to charge 1 miles worth of batteries, hydrogen has notoriously low power output making them slow, hydrogen is very very expensive compared to ICE yet alone electricity for BEV’s and hydrogen, whilst being lightweight, takes up a huge amount of volume. Meaning you have extraordinarily small boot space and cabin space for the size of the vehicle, as is exemplified by the Toyota Mirai.
So they’re not very well suited for cars because they get just as much range or less than BEV with no ability to store more fuel with compromised cabin and boot space making the vehicle less practical. The vehicles don’t last as long, have poor performance, need much higher infrastructure costs, even as far as grid capacity, and cost significantly more to operate. Doesn’t sound well suited to automotive applications to me.
1
-
@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful Climate Change Denialism is a completely separate subject I dont want to get into. As for the cost of hydrogen, It should be pointed out that you would have to pay for 3-4 times the amount of grid electricity per mile from a BEV, plus water, plus equipment and facility capital, plus maintained of the site, staffing wages, logistics, site overheads, etc etc, All with a profit markup to be transported and sold to fuel stations, who would then put a profit markup ontop of that before it arrives at the consumer in the car. Meaning, even if the company only had to pass on the power prices AT COST BEV's are still 3-4 times cheaper per miles. With no real solution on how to make the fuel much cheaper at all.
As for charging. I think you are mis interpreting how EV's actually work. EV's today have ranges between 250-400 miles with the average commute being around 16 miles and a 70 mile commute being deemed on the far higher end. Even travelling those distances, if you get home and plug into a wall socket, yet alone a home charger that the vehicles come with, you would wake up the next morning with a full battery. Every morning. just for arriving home from work and getting up the next morning to leave. That would save the average person approximately 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel from a fuel station (hydrogen included).
When doing longer trips over the 250-400 miles. You would almost exclusively use super chargers, the most modern of which can fully charge your EV in 5-10 minutes, with the most common of which doing so in 25-35 minutes. Which after several hours of charging is enough time to go get a coffee and have a toilet break. Keep in mind you dont have to stand there and hold the hose like you do with a ICE car.
All in all BEV's actually save people time and are far from being as slow as you make them out to be. They are far more practical than most people give them credit for because its a paradigm shift. Most people thing they'd have to drive to some special station and stand outside holding a plug for 12 hours. Not the case at all. You just plug it in when you get home and have a full battery every single morning with enough range that if your forgot for some reason, you could afford to do so something like 3 or more days in a row before it becomes critical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So for the extra 75 miles I get from going for a FCEV like the Mirai over the BEV like the Model 3. I get significantly worse performance, I get excessively more expensive operating costs, I have to take it to a fuel station once a week, I have a boot so small its nearly un-usable, and the cabin space is so tight that I cant even fold the rear seats to try to extend the boot space and ontop of that, the survivability in a crash is alot lower thanks to the significantly smaller boot reducing the rear crumple zone and have not front boot to extend the crumple zone there either.
These arent things that are going to be engineered out. All of them aside front cost and performance is due to the fact that Hydrogen, whilst is light, takes up alot of the space. the Mirai for example, only carries 5.1kg of hydrogen. But it takes up a tank volume of 141L. That a bigger tank capacity in your little mid-sized sedan, than you get in a massive Ford F150. Thats alot of space. Additionally you also have to fit an exhaust system, Lithium Batteries and a fuel cell into it. So there really isnt any space.
The performance will always be limited because of the fuel cell. The limitation is the surface are of the catalytic element in the fuel cell (the very extremely toxic platinum to be precise). The fuel cell takes up the entire engine bay but produces electricity at such a slow rate than you only have enough for cruising. And not enough for acceleration. So the Mirai needs Lithium Batteries to store the excess energy so that it can actually accelerate the car. But because there is so little space they could only fit a 1.6kWh battery which is so small that the power output from that isnt really anything to blush at either, only providing enough power to accelerate the car from 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. A full 6 seconds slower than the Tesla.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even the cleanest way to produce hydrogen requires 3-4 times the same electrical energy per miles as a BEV. So from the same energy grid, EV's produce 3-4 times less emissions, Sure you can make Hydrogen greener through renewables, but the same can be said for EV's which would require much less. If you have 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 drives with BEV's, you would need 2-3 more windfarms built and commissioned with all the emissions involved with that to power the needs of those same 100 people if they had hydrogen cars.
Ontop of that modern EV's inclusive of the battery, are designed to last 30-40 years. Meanwhile hydrogen cars are limited to 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Meaning you'd need 3-4 hydrogen cars to cover the lifetime of just 1 BEV. and all the emissions that go with making and disposing of that hydrogen car.
In terms of practicality, Hydrogen cars have next to no storage or cabin space. Having less of either than a car half its size. BEV's have massive boots, alot of cabin space and even a front trunk. Hydrogen cars go much slower than BEV's whilst BEV's are known to be incredibly fast. Hydrogen cars protect the tanks through chassis reinforcement making them (yes its true) heavier than BEV's and reduce the crumple zones leading to lower survivability in a crash making them less safe than BEV's.
Hydrogen also costs ALOT of money. Hydrogen, even when made cheap through fossil fuels instead of electrolysis, is around 10-20 times the cost per miles driven than a BEV. Making them very expensive to own.
SO... BEV vs Hydrogen, Hydorgen cars create more emissions, dont even last half the lifespan of a BEV, are slow, have less room in the cabin, impractically small cargo capacity, are less safe and cost significantly more to operate. All for only 20% more range to a tank than an equivalent EV to a charge. Bargain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeBlack1108 it is also more fuel efficient to charge your EV off a portable diesel generator than it would be to use that fuel in a Diesel engine, meaning that $110 a month would get you further with an EV. as for pulling capacity maybe try looking at the adverts for the electric F150 or the Cyber truck. Electric motors are known for their torque. Cranes don’t use Diesel engines, they use electric motors.
Any mine in Australia has to meet the minimum requirements of the minors unions. Miners are paid better than almost any other profession in Australia. I can’t speak for Africa however the majority of lithium comes from Australia.
Also the batteries are absolutely recyclable. A quick google search will clear that up for you.
As for lifetime. Modern EV batteries are designed to last around 500,000 miles with no regular services required. No oil replacements, spark plugs, belts, fuel pumps, oil filters, injectors. Infact it’s not uncommon to find an older generation Tesla which he done over 400,000 miles or more.
That’s because of modern battery management systems and the fact that EV’s only have a few hundred moving parts, Combustion cars have a few hundred thousand. There aren’t many parts because they aren’t needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ummm.... no hydrogen does have a negative impact. When being made with fossil fuels, take steam gas reformation for example, you burn gas creating co2 to create superheated steam. You use that steam with more gas to separate the hydrogen from the hydro-carbon gas, which gives you hydrogen but releases more CO2. Meaning it would produce less emissions if you just put that gas into a car instead of creating hydrogen with it. Alternatively there is green hydrogen which is significantly harder to scale. Because it takes some 56kWh of electricity to produce just 1kg of hydrogen. To fill a Toyota Mirai you will need more than 313 kWh of electricity to produce enough hydrogen for it. thats around 3-4 times more electricity per mile than a Battery Electric car uses. Now unless you are on a 100% renewables grid (good luck finding one) then it produces 3-4 times more emissions per mile form energy production when compared to using that same energy to charge a BEV.
Electric is far more efficient, and in most cases, far more practical. It has longer ranges, better cabin and boot spaces, cheaper to operate, you waste less time at a fuel station, you can charge from a generator in a pinch or if you're in remote locations (you cant carry hydrogen in a jerry can) and they last around 3 times longer than hydrogen cars do before they need to be replaced. All whist costing less and having far better performance and safety to boot.
Actually fuel cells are weaker. also far more fragile. Fuel cells output notoriously lower power output. the batteries are not used for regenerative breaking as they need to be charged by the fuel cells to adequately accelerate the cars (due to their low power output). But the smaller a battery is the smaller the power output it provides. meaning that regardless, hydrogen is typical alot slower than BEV's. Take the Mirai for example, electric motor, 1.6kWh battery, goes from 0-60 in 9.1 seconds. The model S - a similar sized vehicle, less than 2 seconds. Whilst getting more range. The other thing is the fuel cells only last according to Toyota and Hyundai, 100,000 to 150,000 miles. Meanwhile modern EV batteries are designed to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles. And modern EV's are already showing signs of achieving this as modern EV's (post 2019) which have already surpassed 100,000 miles show less than 2% degradation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So many incorrect statements here. Where to begin?
-EV sales show no sign of flat lining so far
- according to vehicle safety regulators AND insurance companies doing their own independent studies, EV’s are between 20-50 times less likely to catch fire than an ICE car. Even while parked.
- Modern EV batteries last twice the average lifespan of an ICE engine. The warranties reflect this, with the current industry standard EV battery warranty being nearly 10 years whilst the industry standard Engine warranty is only 5 years.
- charging network in the vast majority of places can keep up just fine. Most have excess capacity, and have been increasing in capacity, even to this day. Also keep in mind EV’s typically charge at night when demand is at its lowest. And at the rate of grid expansions vs EV adoption, there is more than enough time for the grid to keep up.
- you can pick up a Tesla model 3, BMW’s M3’s main market competitor in size, performance, handling and luxury, for less than a ford bronco, BEFORE incentives. Ford broncos don’t strike me as a “toy for the rich” or ultra wealthy. Perhaps that’s why the best selling car globally in 2023 is the Tesla Model Y. Because it certainly isn’t because it’s a rich persons toy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@club6525 firstly, no, a car has maybe tops, 1.5m2 of roof surface area on large vehicles. Solar panels at best produce 1kW per square meter. They also couldn’t told to maximum sun absorption meaning your utility factor would be dumped somewhere around the 15%. What that means is over a sunny, cloud free 10 hours of sunlight day, you could expect to generate a whopping 2.25kWh of electricity in total. So no, it wouldn’t be sufficient to run a car. Electric or pointlessly water.
And no, in terms of weight it still doesn’t make up for it. Water isn’t energy dense. It just isn’t. You don’t release energy from water, you put energy into it. 4.6kWh into water gets you 2.2kWh out. So no. Additionally, most of waters weight, IE, 89% of its weight, is oxygen, so again, not really all that energy dense. And you’re carrying a lot of additional weight. Infact in terms of weight, 1L of water weighs 1kg and has 0.11kg of hydrogen in it, whilst 1kg of hydrogen at 700 bar on its own weighs… well 1kg. So you’d be drastically increasing the weight of the car. For the same 5.6kg of hydrogen in a mirai, you’d have to carry onboard, 51kg of water. You’d also need a battery which could convert that water to hydrogen, you’d need more than 230kWh of energy to do so. Which again, solar panels won’t cut it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually this would create very little hydrogen. For example a purpose built 200kW electrolyser over 24 hours can only produce 80kg of hydrogen. over 24 hours at 200kW, thats 4,800kWh. Which means you need 60kW of electricity to produce 1kg of hydrogen. You also need to compress it to 700 bar to put it into a car. Which means you lose about 20% on compression. Meaning you'd need 75kWh of electricity. You're 2 volts at 20A, is 0.08kW. Meaning at that power output, to fill a 5.6kg fuel tank of the Toyota Mirai for example, would take you 219 days of non stop energy feed in. In addition, if you were charged 0.28c per kWh for that electricity it would cost you $117.6 to do that. (75kWh/kg x 5.6kg = 420kWh. == 420kWh x 0.28c/kWg = $117.6). Side note that 5.6kg of fuel in a Mirai will get you 400 miles so thats 30c per mile.
By comparison the same 420kWh will get a Tesla model 2,100 miles. ( Long range has a 75kWh battery pack which will take it 353 miles). Which equates to a cost of 0.05 cents per mile.
Keep in mind that if you buy hydrogen from a fuel station you are also paying for the staffing logistics and transport overheats for the production plant, plus a markup on that when they sell it to fuel stations. then the fuel stations put a profit markup on that before they sell it to you. Also dont forget that you have to pay for the water too.
So yes, Hydrogen is very expensive. And yes, whilst you can produce hydrogen with 2v and 20A, it would take a VERY long time to fill a car doing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because it does not occur naturally in its pure form on earth. You HAVE to split it from something else, like water, natural gas, coal, oil, ammonia etc. And splitting it requires infrastructure to transport it to the hydrogen plants and then to the fuel stations. And splitting it, itself takes alot of energy as you need more energy to split the chemical bonds that hold the hydrogen in, what are called "carriers" (water, ammonia, etc), than you get out by recombining it to create electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fossil fuel companies and legacy auto makers have made huge pushes to move towards hydrogen because if the world moves towards green energy that’s how they keep their income. The easiest way to produce hydrogen, and the cheapest way, is through splitting hydro-carbons (aka, fossil fuels like oil and gas). They keep the hydrogen and release the carbon.
Further to that, if the world went battery electric, there would be no use for fuel stations anymore, or fuel transportation infrastructure. And guess who owned most of the fuel stations? Shell, BP oil, Caltex, oil companies do. But if they push hydrogen, their fuel station business model remains in tact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hydrogen trucks have a worse outlook than battery electric trucks. the majoirty of the specs for both the Tesla semi which is undergoing road trials currently for selected frieght companies, and the Hyundai Hydrogen semi truck the Xcient currently in use in Sweden i believe. Comparing the two shows scary differences.
Range: Xcient is 400 miles fully loaded. Tesla is 500 miles fully loaded
Power: Xcient lacks the power to go faster than 85km/h (52mph) even unloaded. Tesla can acheive freeways speeds even on a steep slope.
Battery: Aside from having not one but two fuel cells and double the fuel tank capacity of a standard semi, the Xcient has a 75kWh battery (same size thats in a Tesla model 3 long range). The tesla is estimated to have a 1,000 kWh battery.
Lifespan: Xcient fuel cell is only rated for 100,000 miles and the fuel tanks are only rated for 10 years. The Tesla is designed to last well over 1 million miles. If current Tesla Battery degradation applies to the Semi, then that is an underestimate.
Design: The Xcient needs space for all its fuel tanks, 75Kwh battery and 2 large 95kW fuel cells. With all that space requirement the Xcient not only takes up alot of verticle space of the first trailer, reducing overall cargo volume, but the rear of the truck extends almost the full length of the first trailer. Meaning it has a terrible turning circle. The tesla suffers not such issues. The tesla also has the ability to charge from its destinations, meanwhile hydrogen is difficult to come across. Even in California.
Cost of operation: Xcient, does not last very long and hydrogen is approximately 20x the price per mile than a BEV costs to operate and around twice the cost of diesel per mile. And that wont get much better for hydrogen. The Tesla costs remarkably little to operate and will outlast diesel trucks without any of the regular maintenance. around 10x cheaper than diesel per mile.
Lastly, refueling. Semi trucks have no real requirement to go further than 500 miles in a day due to labour laws in most countries. They prohibit truck drivers from being behind the wheel for certain lengths of time in a day and mandate breaks. For example, in the US truck drivers are not allowed to be behind the wheel for more than 11 hours in a day. With them being required to take a 30 minute break somewhere between their 5th and 9th hour. There is only so far you can travel in 8 hours with a truck. around 400-450 miles in fact. Meaning that the truck has enough range fully loaded to keep going until the truck driver is required by law to stop for 30 minutes. 30 minutes also happens to be the time required to charge the Tesla Semi. You also dont have to be with the truck whilst this happens. You can go into the rest stop and use the facilities and eat some food and drink before going back on the road.
Therefore its reasonable to conclude that there is absolutely not time penalty for driving a Battery Truck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1.) football field 7 yards deep. and only for waste produced in the USA, not globally. Also there is nuclear waste and no, it cannot go back to where it was mined from, in the state its in it will leach into the environment and end up in the food at which point animals will digest it and it will be substituted in their bones for calcium. it is also at a much higher radioactive level than when it was mined, even for low yeild stuff. so yea, it does pollute, we have no way of dealing with that kind of pollution.... none. we just shove it in specially made barrels and put them in warehouses and hangers.
2.) it cant be recycled while you drive. it gets dumped. Also why hydrogen is one of the most common elements, it is also not found in its pure state on earth meaning you have to expend a huge amount of energy (often not clean) to extract it from something else, like water.. or most commonly hydro-carbons (aka, fossil fuels). it does not fill up like gas or diesel. the only way to liquify hydrogen is cryogenically, which means freezing it at super cold temperatures (more than -400°F, or -230°C) which takes a huge amount of energy. Cars take GASSOUS hydrogen. which can leak through solid metal and most gaskets and seals. and will weaken metal it comes into contact with so..... no.
3.) whilst battery production is certainly not clean, its not that dirty either. only producing around 15% more during manufacturing for the whole car compared to ICE. which is more than compensated for by the reduced emissions during operation (yes that includes running off oil and coal generators). They're also not that much heavier than similar type and spec'd cars. For some reason luxury EV's have often been compared to economy cars. If you know anything about cars, Luxury interiors, features, suspension, yada yada, weighs a hell of alot more than economy stock. Compared to similar market cars (also luxury) they're not much heavier at all. sometimes less. keep in mind that whilst BEV's do have very heavy batteries, they also dont have very heavy engine blocks and transmissions.
4.) its not cheaper, its not faster and it doesnt go further. and you're talking about combustion hydrogen too (less than 25% efficient). a fuel cell which has no sound is 60% efficient. and even then they dont get as far as similar sized BEV's and no where near as fast. Thats because hydrogen is low power output whilst also being high volume the Mirai goes 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen which takes up nearly 150L of fuel tank storage. More than a stock ford F250 carries. In a sedan. The similarly sized BEV the Tesla Model S long range gets 412 miles to a charge and recently a company called "ONE batteries" replaced the Tesla Batteries in the model S with their own batteries and got that range to 756 miles so go further no. Keep in mind that the Mirai only does 0-60 in 8.2 seconds whilst the model S can do it in less than 2s. so faster? also no.
1
-
1
-
@wardencobb7442 1.) you cant "burn" HLW or LLW nuclear waste in a thorium reactor. there is just waste, and as I said, thats only in the US, there is more globally. You do realise that US nuclear waste makes up 0.8% of nuclear waste globally right? the USA has 60 plants. European Union operates 103. That waste doesnt go anywhere, there is no recycling for it. there is no making it safe, we have no where it put it. Making more is stupid
2.) firstly, you cant fuel anything with water, so your hydro-oxy fuel would be in 2 separate tanks. To store it as a liquid both of them would have to be cryogenically stored. Which requires constant amounts of alot of energy and large refrigeration coils. neither of which you're going to fit into a car. that means the hydrogen and oxygen will always need to be a gas.
Further to that, hydrogen combustion into water only produces around 30% of the energy natural gas produces. So nothing you fuel with it will go very fast.
3.) "a model 3 weighs the same as a ford F150!" no it doesnt. the lightest Ford F150 weighs around 700 lbs more than the heaviest model 3. keeping in mind that the entire back end of the truck is a tray which take up less than 5% of the vehicles total weight. But lets compare apples to apples instead of apples to F150's. The model 3 is in the same size class and luxury range as a volvo S60 and V60 which weight more than the model 3 by around 100lb.
Whilst it might be lighter to carry hydrogen, its not space friendly. Batteries achieve more than half the volumetric requirements of a hydrogen car. Mostly due to the fact that gasseous hydrogen takes up alot of room. And we've already established the liquid hydrogen would be impractical for automotive applications.
4.) how exactly do you think fuel cells work? they combine hydrogen and oxygen through what is basically a catalytic filter which forces the electrons to go around a circuit in order to complete the reaction. This process is around 60% efficient at capturing the energy released by the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, and combustion engine combining the two is only around 20% efficient.
Hydrogen and oxygen reactions aren't especially powerful compared to other chemical reactions. But they are light weight, which is important for getting a rocket off the ground. Its used as rocket fuel not because its particularly powerful but because it has a high expansion to weight ratio for the rocket.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Haidar536 yeah not really. When generators have to wind down, or shut off due to off peak demand being so low, they waste a huge amount of of energy and fuel.
The lost energy when shutting off and spinning back on and re-synching with the grid is enourmous in terms of wasted fuel costs. And when they’re wound down, then they aren’t operating at their peak performance in terms of fuel burnt vs kWh generated making them more expensive to run per kWh.
Trying to prevent this they have tried to incentivise people to use more power during off peak, by making it cheaper.
So what off peak charging would save power companies much more money, wouldn’t generally add much wear and tear on the generators than what they’d already be getting, and the reduction in operating costs would filter through to peak times as well, in general, reducing energy prices.
So no, it isn’t dangerous. That’s a laughable assertion. Power companies WANT their assets to be utilised as much as possible. It’s called return on investment (ROI). The less it’s used, the less ROI, the less it’s used at peak capacity or the more they have to shut down and come back on, the more lost ROI. It doesn’t make business sense to utilisation based on maintenance already accounted for in the sale price of energy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@countlessbathory1485 what the hell are you on about mate? this isnt a contentious topic anymore. The science is in. we have the data, this can been confirmed. Wind turbines are cheaper than coal gas and oil power plants. So is solar. And what do you mean the run of coal? how the hell does that work in your head? that statement makes litterally no sense.
Any place which has seen widescale adoption of renewables has seen a drastic reduction in wholesale energy prices and most have seen an increase in stability (I say most because I have to include California which I can get into later if you wish). In Germany, widescale adoption of wind and solar has seen a drastic reduction in wholesale energy prices. They have also reduced their power outages by 10x in 10 years due to the uptake of renewables coupled with some form of energy storage for capacitation. South Australia's energy grid was THE most expensive grid in Australia and THE most unreliable. Now that they have 70% renewables and battery storage they now have THE cheapest wholesale energy prices in Australia and THE most reliable grid in Australia.
The cost of windmill per MW is around $3 million dollars. The cost of 500 MW coal power plant is $3 billion for a 500MW powerplant. So if we scale up the wind turbine farm to 500MW thats $1.5 billion for 500MW of nameplate wind energy. And $3 Billion for equivalent nameplate costs for a coal plant. I mean, just google images of wind farms vs coal power plants and tell me which you think would be cheaper to build. In addition, wind turbines dont have to buy and burn thousands of tons of coal every day to generate the required power nor do they require some 500+ employees to operate a wind turbine farm. where as you do for coal gas or oil power plants.
This isn't an hypothesis, nor is it brainwashing, or a conspiracy or what ever tin foil hat you want to put on it. The science has been done. Its there in black and white. The real world examples are there. we know they are cheaper. we know they pollute less than burning thousands of tons of coal every day.
also its cute that you think the millions of birds killed every year by wind turbines is a big number. But lets put that into context for you, the context that was so conveniently concealed from you by which ever source you got that from. whilst wind turbines kill millions of birds each year. Cell phone towers alone kill BILLIONS. infact, even high rise buildings kill more wildlife than wind turbines do. This is because wind turbines, despite advertisements, aren't very quite when you're close to them. they emit a low frequency hum. A loud hum which animals do not like. Infact populations in the area usually aren't killed. They just move elsewhere. They avoid the wind farms for this reason. No such loud hum or anything to discourage birds from transmissions lines, cell phone towers, or high rises, all of which kill more birds annually than wind turbines.
wind turbines discourage animals from going near them the same way hearing a loud truck rolling down its engine brakes discourages you from crossing the road.
perhaps getting the whole picture with accurate information may make you look like less of an idiot on the internet in future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some rebuttes. I’ve numbered your “—“ points in chronological order.
1.) Modern EV’s have ranges around or exceeding 400 miles… you can do much more than short trips or city driving. Ask any EV driver.
2.) fair, except for the efficient charger part. EV’s can be more than satisfactorily charged from any regular wall outlet.
3.) wall outlets are cheap, most new EV’s come with home chargers which cost around $250 to install or less. But they do use a lot of electricity. Infact about as much electricity as your car uses. Hence the whole point of charging the car….. but hey, it’s not like you gotta pay for gasoline ontop of that.
4.) true, however the standard domestic vehicle sits for around 14-15 hours each night. More than enough time to get your full 400miles range back after your 100 miles or less of driving you did the day before. Infact that should be enough time to charge 800 miles on a home charger or 250 miles from a wall outlet depending on the efficiency of the car itself. So unless you do DRASTIC daily commutes each day. I think you’re covered…
5.) see (4). I drive 120 miles per day for my commute which is extreme at best in my EV I charge each night from a standard wall outlet because I’ve been to lazy to install the home charger over the last 3 years (crazy I know. Just havn’t had the need to do it yet).
6.) they do, but not that quickly no. It’s not about time, it’s about distance driven that degrades the batteries. Model 3’s made in 2018 did a survey and they found that on average after 100,000 miles of driving, they’d lost less than 2% of their original battery capacity. Infact most batteries are warrantied for 8 years to 20% degradation. To have batteries degrade 2% each year means at the end of their warranty period they’d have 16% degradation according to you which is a VERY fine margin for a warranty when talking about averages so no. Sorry.
7.) correct, aligning with point 2. Let’s not repeat ourselves.
8.) yes, but EV charge points will expand as they have been rapidly. So is it the chicken or the egg you’re worried about here?
9.) most people make stops on long trips to go to the bathroom, get food or coffee or stretch their legs. All of which take about as much time as a super charger takes to charge your battery on a road trip.
10.) is this a point? That’s like saying if you go inside a gas station to pay, if they put the chips out the front, you will spend extra money!! The thought! It’s almost as if gas stations have convenience stores attached to entice you to buy things! The nerve of it all!
11.) that really depends on the quantification on what you think is a lot. And the situation.
12.) actually not much more time than you would spend getting fuel or use the bathroom or getting coffee. I have travel logs if you would like.
13.) if your car runs out gas, you’ll likely need a tow as well. Or you could use a jerry can or in an EV’s case, a cheap portable generator. That being said, how often do you find yourself on the side of the road without fuel? Why would that change with an EV? That’s what I thought.
14.) expensive to buy but extraordinarily cheap to run and maintain. Surprising more than levels the Playing field.
15.) as mentioned before, EV batteries have warranties of 8 years alone. If they need replacing every 8 years, you could get a new battery for free from the manufacturer every 8 years. That would be extraordinary value for money and a huge loss to the manufacturer. As it stands, technically speaking modern EV batteries last longer than standard ICE.
16.) not really. That’s why they have battery management systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually, the fossil fuel industry isnt stupid. as much as people wish they were. With many countries pushing to ban sales of ICE vehicles by some deadline, they know they're on borrowed time. So they will push mass money into "the next best thing" for them. That happens to be hydrogen for 2 reasons. 1st is that most cheap hydrogen is made with... well fossil fuels. They are hydro-carbons. So they can keep producing gas, oil and coal and instead of refining it into fuel they refine it into hydrogen, just through a much dirtier process. 2nd is that you have to get hydrogen from fuel stations, unlike BEV's which are typically charged from home. Fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on fuel stations around the world and represent their second largest capital expenditure and the single largest revenue source. EV's make all that capital worthless overnight and their income gone. Hydrogen, even green hydrogen, keeps them in business.
Thats why you always here how good hydrogen is and never hear the bad things like how they come off the assembly line with an expiration date. its also why hydrogen cars can be purchased with a $15,000 fuel card completely free. But its also why EV's are pushed down, often being called fire hazards despite being 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust an 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to BEV's, or constantly advertised by the media as only lasting a few years when modern EV batteries have lifespans double that of ICE without any of the expensive maintenance requirements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdwardHood big oil loves hydrogen and pushes hydrogen. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from getting it from natural gas, coal or oil. In addition, they’d still be able to hold onto their fuel station monopolies. Which that entire business model goes out the window of battery electrics take off.
The downside to hydrogen is that it takes roughly 3 times the same grid energy per mile than a Battery Electric. Meaning if I built 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 battery electric car owners, I would need to build 3 wind farms to power the needs of those same owners if they switched to hydrogen.
Then there is safety, battery electric is ideal for safety, they combust significantly less often than regular combustion cars but with no fuel tanks, gear train or motor, the crumple zone both at the front and back are reduced dramatically increasing survivability. In addition it also allows them to have a lower centre of gravity resulting in vehicle nearly impossible to roll, resulting in the first SUV to get a perfect score on safety testing in the role over category. Meanwhile hydrogen doesn’t get the same low centre of gravity, and the fuel is so explosive they get better safety scores from sacrificing the occupants to protect the fuel tanks as an explosion could kill nearby pedestrians or take out other vehicles. They also reduce the crumple zone to protect the fuel tanks.
Then there is performance. The power limit of a hydrogen fuel cell car is defined by the available catalytic surface area. Which isn’t a lot inside a car. Meaning it doesn’t have enough power to adequately accelerate. So they need batteries. But the more battery you have, the more power you can send to the motor at any one time, mean they’re inevitably slow. The only way to make them fast is to sacrifice cargo space, passenger space and fuel space. I.e less practicality for better performance. Not a problem shared by electric vehicles.
In addition to performance hydrogens higher centre of gravity and weight distribution challenges means worse handling and agility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aerotuc 400km isnt exactly a short drive. That represents around 4 hours of driving on a freeway. Most people don't travel more than 100km in a day, even when they're busy. In reality the average Australian doesnt travel over 400km in a single day more than once per year at best
as for time. 20 minutes in an unacceptable waste of time? ok, lets put that into context shall we? The average person will travel, on average, 7 minutes out of their way to get fuel. 7 minutes there 7 minutes back. and spend 5 minutes refiling and paying for fuel. They will also, on average do this once per week. That means that is 16-17 hours per year spend attempting to get fuel as for an BEV, you plug that thing in when you get home and it charges when you're at home and you're not using it. You dont have to sit there and hold the plug. You dont have to drive to a fuel station to do it. You plug it in, have dinner enjoy your evening, go to sleep and get up in the morning to a full charge. That represents 0 hours of your time wasted charging in normal day to day.
As I said before you might travel more than 400km in a day maybe once per year. I've only done it twice this year. I drove to Mt Hotham to do snowboarding. Then I drove back. I stopped twice on the way up. And once on the way back. 3 stops, each for 20 minutes. give or take 1 or 3 minutes. So thats 1 hour. Now if i were in a car i would have to stop once for fuel (I used to do this trip in my subaru) when we stopped for fuel I would also stop to get food and stretch my legs. This would take me around half an hour to fuel, park get food, get back on the road. once going up, once coming back. thats 1 hour.
So time lost getting a charge compared to in a combustion car? oh well you guessed it! zero.
even if it were an hour lost compared to driving an ICE car. thats 1 hour per year compared to 16-17 hours per year.
Which one do you think is the more unacceptable waste of time?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It really shouldn’t. He ignores the most fundamental problems with hydrogen, performance, safety and cost.
Hydrogen is extremely expensive. It will never ever reach cost parity with battery electrics.
They’re slower, because power output is low. The only way to make them fast is to make them as practical as a daily driver as Lamborghini aventador, meanwhile Tesla has a large family SUV verging on supercar territory performance.
And safety, hydrogen is extremely, EXTREMELY explosive and can leak through solid metal.
There are more problems but those are the biggest. He’s quick to say steam reforming is cheaper than electrolysis, but neglects to mention it requires splitting fossil fuels into carbon emissions and hydrogen, and whilst you’re polluting using fossil fuels in a less efficient way than just putting that fuel into a car, it’s still double the cost of fuel.
He’s quick to mention that the Hyperion is a hydrogen super car, he neglects to mention the only reason they could pull it off, is by getting rid of all but the drivers seat and removing any cargo space to pack on more batteries and more fuel cells. And even then it only just manages to come close, not even surpass, the performance of Tesla’s large luxury family sedan which has not one boot but 2. (Front and back).
This shouldn’t go viral it should be shot down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theodorvalentinghita1779 well firstly. Battery autonomy? What are you referring to? Secondly, this isn’t actually a problem. My model 3 has a range of 400km (250 miles). (Real world). My daily commute is 120km (75 miles). It can easily get to work and back around 3 times without needing to charge. And still some left over to visit family. However when I charge, unlike fuel I don’t have to drive around and find a charging station to charge up and stand around outside for “hours” holding the plug waiting for it to charge. I simply charge at home from a power point. And I do so when I get home. I don’t have to attend the car for this to happen. I simply plug in and go about my evening. Making dinner, watching TV, sleeping, etc. in the morning I have effectively a full tank of gas again without wasting any of my time.
Fuel by comparison. Most people will detour an average of 7 minutes each way, 7 minutes to the station, 7 minutes back on route, plus 5 minutes filling and paying. They also do so on average once per week. This means that you’d be spending an average of around 16-17 hours per year, wasted in the pursuit of fuel. For me that sum is 0 hours per year wasted charging.
As for long trip. Super charging is the way to go. It can fully charge your car in anywhere between 15-30 minutes depending on the charger type. This means that it only takes me around an additional 1.5 hours over a 1,500 mile road trip. However over that period of time required to travel that distance biological limits come into play. You have to stop for food, and toilet break or some coffee, water etc. if we say that takes around 30 minutes to pee and order food and eat in the car, that means over a 1,500 mile road trip that’s 1 additional hour spent charging.
But I might only do that trip once or twice a year. So assuming they’re round trips I might make twice a year, that 4 hours lost to charging but 16-17 hours saved from having to get fuel for the other 361 days in a year.
So in reality, you are wasting far more of your time having to refuel than you would charging.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Want to give you some explainers.
1.) hydrogen doesn’t evaporate. It’s already a gas. As for storage longevity, hydrogen can leak through solid steel. It’s very very small. It is going to leak out of the car. Early hydrogen cars lost as much as 40% over 2 weeks. Meanwhile for BEV’s you do get phantom drain, however it’s non-apparent if it’s sitting at home plugged in. Which it presumably is. If you own an EV, you have the ability to plug it in while it’s parked at home. Meaning it’s a non issue. As for the drain itself. I have an EV. I went on a 3 week holiday. I lost less than 5% over that period of time.
2.) range. You may be surprised to know that hydrogen actually has less range than similar sized BEV’s. The mirai is dimensionally closest to the Tesla model S. But the S gets 412 miles to a charge whilst the mirai gets 400 to a tank. The mirai has so much fuel on board it has a boot 100L less than that of a YARRIS and isn’t even big enough to put a spare tire in (not even a space saver). No front boot and a rear cabin space so small you can’t actually fold the rear seats. So you’re not getting more fuel to go further because you can’t fit in anywhere on board. The model S on the other hand is know for have stupid amounts of boot and cabin space with a front boot as well. Also the rear seats do fold to extend the boot.
It is also worth noting that this means you can put more batteries in. The ONE battery company replaced the batteries in a model S with their own, without taking up boot or cabin space. And bumped the range from 412 miles to 756 miles. Significantly more than what the mirai can achieve.
3.) thermal stability. You don’t hear about hydrogens problems with the cold because they aren’t anywhere there is significant cold. Otherwise it becomes pretty transparent that the problems that affect BEV’s also affect batteries.
For example, the biggest loss of range for a BEV in the cold is the heater (don’t know why you think radio). A ICE car produces a lot of waste heat as a byproduct. That can be used to heat the cabin air effectively for free. Batteries don’t have that, they have to spend energy to heat the cabin air. Unfortunately so does hydrogen as hydrogen electrics also suffer from this problem. Although current EV’s are far better than their predecessors now that they use heat pumps instead of resistance heaters to heat the air. Meaning instead of 15%-20% loss you have less than 5% range loss over a full day.
Hydrogen however suffers from a critical drawback in cold temperatures. And you’re going to feel embarrassed when I point it out. Everyone does.
What’s hydrogens byproduct? Water. The freezing point of water is 0C (32F) whilst for batteries it’s -40. What happens to fuel cell if your turn it off, and all the water vapour condensed on the exhaust side of the catalyst freezes? No more hydrogen flow when you turn it back on. You have to wait until the weather is warm enough to thaw it out.
Then what happens if you’re driving, exhausting all this water vapour into an exhaust system below 0? It freezes, and much like the arteries in a fat man, it starts yo clogg. Restricted flow means worse and worse performance until it stops running entirely. Meaning even if you have turned it off and allowed water to freeze on the fuel cell. If it’s below freezing there’s a good chance that the car will stop mid drive and you can’t do anything until the weather warms up.
Doesn’t sound like a winner to me.
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately too much CO2 is bad. Even for plants. And we are producing more CO2 than the environment can absorb. Here is a good example. Sea algae is one of the single largest consumers of CO2 from the atmosphere. Absorbing more CO2 than almost anything else. But when there is more CO2 that can be absorbed by the algae, it is absorbed into the water, making it ever so slightly more acidic. The acidity kills off some of the algae, now, because the algae population is smaller, it doesn’t absorb was much, so more is absorbed into the water, killing more algae again.
This is a very slow process, takes decades, but it’s called a positive feedback loop.
CO2 is also well documented at trapping heat instead of letting it vent out into space. Like a greenhouse does.
Polar ice caps reflect a huge amount of sunlight out into space. The water the air gets because of the increase in CO2, the more those caps melt ever so slightly, and the more they melt, the less sun they can reflect which gets absorbed into the ocean water as heat, which melts more a ice, leading to warmer water, etc etc etc.
Turns out education IS important and every so often, when 97% of the most highly educated and intelligent people on the planet, the same people and scientific processes that brought you the internet, touch screen smart phones, MRI’s, the airbus A380, all agree on one thing. “The amount of CO2 we’re producing is bad” then I think we should PROBABLY listen to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately you need ALOT of electrify to produce hydrogen. As it doesn’t occur naturally in its gas form on earth. As a result, it won’t be powering power plants. Power plants will be powering hydrogen. At a rate of 4 times more electricity per miles worth of hydrogen, compared to charging 1 miles worth of a Battery electric car.
Then there are the impracticalities of hydrogen. Although weight wise hydrogen is extremely dense, it’s volumetric density is catastrophically bad. Take the mirai for example. The two front seats are nearly their own compartments because they need space for the fuel. The rear seats are unusable by adults because they need space for fuel and despite it being a camry sized car, it has a boot smaller than a yaris has because they need the space for fuel and if you needed more than a carry on luggage size boot, you can’t fold the rear seats because it needs the space for fuel. All while the fuel you’re desperately needing all your practical space for is more expensive per mile than ICE yet alone battery electric.
The are other problems such as lacklustre power output from fuel cells causing poor acceleration, fuel cell lifespans are typically very short. The fuel tank life spans are typically very short, the need to protect the fuel tank overriding the need to protect the occupants making them relatively dangerous vehicles in an accident. The list goes on.
They’re less green, not as powerful, more expensive, less safe, not as practical and less reliable than battery electrics. Or ICE for that matter.
1
-
.... its included in the kWh per mile used.... similarly its included in the grams of hydrogen used per mile when calculating those efficiencies. If hydrogen got 7 times further on the same amount of hydrogen then it would be a different story wouldnt it? so its not ignored.
CO2 is plant food but too much can be a very bad thing. For instance you want to have a small plat of chips. But it would probably start causing you problems if the room was filled to the roof in chips. Co2 isnt the most effective greenhhouse gas but it does have the highest amount of chain dependancies. What do I mean by that? lets review a cycle. One of MANY.
Sea algea feeds of co2. its actually one of the worlds largest consumers of the gas. So clearly, any lay person would conclude, more co2, more algea, problem solved right? wrong. If the amount of Co2 is higher than what can be absorbed by the existing algae, its absorbed into the water. this raises the acidity of the water. Which in turn, kills the algea. with less algae to absorb the carbon, more is absorbed into the water, which kills more algae. You understand why climate scientist talk so much about feedback loops?
We know this is happening because the same acidity which kills algae also bleaches coral. and guess whats happening world wide?
Here is another. We know that the white ice caps over the earth reflect ALOT of sunlight, sunlight which would have otherwise generated more heat in our oceans. Now if they heat up just a little bit, more ice melts. With less ice, more heat gets into the oceans. which raises the temperature again but a fraction of a degree, which melts more ice, which allows more sun... see where that is going?
why does that affect us? well not so much in the immediate future with sea levels admittedly, but by raising the temperature of the ocean, even by 0.01 of a degree on average, the uptake of evapouration of the ocean increases ALOT that causes more severe storms to happen more regularly. It results in higher than average rainfall. Unfortunately that means that percipitation of that water vapour occurs sooner. meaning whilst the coastal regions are flooded more often and more severely. its rained well before its gotten inland. meaning that further inland you have droughts lasting longer and occuring more often.
are you seeing a pattern here?
sure. CO2 is good for plants. but too much isnt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well no. Per km, you do need around 3x the amount of electricity to produce the hydrogen than if you used that same energy in a Battery electric car. The problem with grid infrastructure is tripled with hydrogen, not helped. Moreover, charging times are actually a benefit for battery and not for hydrogen, especially with domestic passenger cars. With ranges between 250-400 miles, there is more than enough range for almost any daily commute. Meaning 99% of the year the average person only needs to plug in at home and get up in the morning to a full charge. 0 minutes wasted driving to, fueling up and driving back to get fuel which is 10x more expensive than electricity.
Also you can’t retrofit an Battery electric into a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The large battery packs of battery electric vehicles make up the cars chassis. Removing batteries would be like taking out half your chassis. In addition, it changes the weight dynamics. You have to install a fuel system, and electronics and fuel cell, most of which has to sit above the chassis, in a vehicle which is designed to optimise the space provided. By having a flat battery pack at the bottom. Which means you’d have to replace everything except the shell of the car, the chassis, electronics, computer systems, safety system, suspension, etc etc and keep some of the batteries and motor which you’d have to take out and re-mount some other way. It would literally be cheaper to buy a new car
1
-
well heres the thing. GVM for electric trucks in the US is roughly 1 metric ton more, so around 37T. The truck itself does not have a big heavy diesel engine or transmission, that means its the 3-4T battery weight doesnt put it much over. The end result is that its carrying capacity is about 1 Ton less than a conventional diesel truck. In the EU however, the offset for Electric trucks is 2 metric tons, giving the semi and equivalent carrying capacity as a diesel truck. This is already been confirmed by Tesla even without the actual numbers being released. (which I believe is because they want to re-assess with their new 4680 Batteries).
But we know from on road tests that the truck will be able to travel up to and just over 500 miles to a charge, thats around 9 hours of driving, We also know most developed countries like the EU and the US have laws limiting the length of time you can be driving a truck for. For the US thats 11 hours straight with a 30 minute break sometime before your 8th hour. Tesla have also released that the Semi on V3 superchargers will be able to recharge up to 80% of its battery in 30 minutes. That means you'd be able to drive up to your 8th hour, pull over at a charger, after 30 minutes you have enough charge to continue up to you 11th hour.
Keeping in mind that the cost of electricity per mile will be around 1/10th the cost of fuel per mile, in addition even with Teslas current batteries the semi should be able to outlast its diesel counterparts and with the stated cycle numbers for the 4680 batteries (Tesla have always underquoted expected cycle lifes) it should last significantly more, (well over 20 million miles if they are to be believed, which as I've said, they've always underquoted their batteries cycle lifes).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
78%+23% is 101%.... I think you have a maths problem buddy. Also its 78% Nitrogen. Not hydrogen. 21% Oxygen 0.9% Argon, the remaining 0.1% are other gasses. additionally its not that tree's dont breath carbon dioxide. its that we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air than the plants can take out. we're also reducing the amount of tree's world wide at an alarming rate.
Further to that the oceans begin to absorb carbon acidifying the ocean. The vast majority of the worlds carbon is not taken up by tree's but by ocean algae. When you produce more carbon than plants and algae can absorb, the ocean absorbs it causing it to acidify. When it acidifies, it kills off some of the algae. When it kills off some of the algae, then less carbon is absorbed, which then acidifies the oceans more, which kills more algae.
are you beginning to see why too much carbon might be a bad thing yet? Thats called a positive feedback loop. lets try another. Alot of the suns heat is actually reflected away by ice caps and glaciers. If you've ever gone to the snow without sunscreen you're probably very aware of this. As temperatures increase ever so slightly, because carbon is a greenhouse gas, (not an effective one but elevated levels will induces even a mild shift in temperature, lets say 0.01 degree or something). a little bit extra ice melts each year. Because there is a little less ice, a little less heat is reflected back out to space and is absorbed by the ocean. That heat melts more ice, which lets in more heat, which melts more ice. Are you seeing the trend yet?
what about this, as ice melts, it reduces the salinity of the water (meaning it will evaporate easier) and the temperature starts to rise ever so slightly, because of the ice cap feedback loop. That means more water is evaporated into clouds. You know what is one of the most effective greenhouse gas in the world? clouds are. You get more clouds, those clouds trap more heat, the higher temperatures evaporates more water which causes more clouds, which trap more heat. seeing the pattern yet?
you know what happens when you have rapidly forming clouds and weather systems? more regular extreme weather events. more evaporation causes Clouds to be too heavy to go as far in land as they used to. You now have droughts inland. The clouds also dump more rain before they go inland. sometimes around coastal regions. meaning you get more regular flooding as well. More clouds for Weather systems (not climate. two distinctly different things) coupled with cold winter temperatures means you get extreme cold weather events like one seen in Texas. When you get prolonged drought inland or regions already arid you get more extreme fire conditions and you end up with record breaking fires like the ones seen in Australia and California. Which is funny because Australia has also experienced record breaking floods in coastal regions not long after that devastating fire season.
Its almost as if, increased carbon affects an untold number of positive feedback looks that will begin to cascade if it isn't properly addressed which would cause more regular extreme weather events that are not only hot but cold and not old dry by flooding. and will become self accelerating whether we do something about it or not. Weird isn't it. Are you beginning to see that pattern yet? or do you need it spelled out to you more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knockywigglesworth1909 how expensive do you think the operational costs of a wind farm is? do you really think its more than the maintance and overhead costs or even the cost of fuel of a fossil fuel plant per kWh? have you seen a fossil fuel power plant? they'd pay more daily than a windfarm does its entire lifespan just on wages for personnel who operate the plant! yet alone for fuel and maintenance.
also it depends on how short term you mean? do you mean over the next 30-50 years like its projected to? because i would disagree. and apparently so do many large companies such as cocola, pepsi, walmart, fedex, UPS, DHL, and more who've ordered a fleet of Electric Semi Trucks.
places like CA are a minority case. Largely because CA problems are due to incompetence and political interference in the energy sector. their situation is unique in its stupidity. Other places like texas has only had the power go out because of natural disasters which the two big freezes were. The grid was NEVER designed to operate in those condition in Texas. The power outage wasnt due to lack of supply. but due to lack of fuel. As in, the gas pipes pumping the fuel to power plants, FROZE the coal being stored for the powerplant FROZE tranformers for load sharing FROZE.
More recently, the Texas government allowed measure to prevent this from happening again, be optional for gas companies. And since gas companies wanted to save a buck, they obviously took 0 action. Hence its happened a second time as those extreme weather related natural disasters at those scale begin to become more common place. (thanks to climate change).
as a whole however, the national energy grid (not just specific places like california) operates at approximately 40% capacity most of the year. What also helps is the time in which most people charge their EV's is at night. From home. In their garage, whilst they're sleeping. meaning that EV's typically charge when demand is lowest. So trying to extrapolate from when demand is highest is a misleading way to represent the facts.
1
-
1
-
1