The BETTER Electric Vehicle..

[flacaltenn]

This thread goes well with Davemans' thread Re: CBO statements on EVs and Toyota pulling it's EV before production. WHY did Toyota pull the product??

Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News

Posted: 09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
September 25, 2012 8:29 PM GMTUpdated: 09/25/2012 01:29:31 PM PDT

Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.

The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.

Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.

A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.

Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.

But it will offer just 1,000 FCEVs, based on its Tucson crossover, from December through to 2015 in Europe as it looks to more than halve production costs to $44,700.

Trade media have put the initial sticker price at around $88,000, a hefty price tag for a brand that made its name with cheaper, feature-filled models.

While fuel-cell electric cars may go further, manufacturers still have to wrestle with the high cost of production -- double or triple that of battery-powered electric vehicles -- and a lack of refuelling infrastructure.

"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.

He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.

A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.


German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.

The aim is to bring down the cost to that of a natural gas filling station, around 300,000 euros, or $387,500, from around 1 million euros today, said Ulrich Buenger, a coordinator at the European Hydrogen Road Tour 2012, which is funded by industry and the European Commission.

"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."

Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.

Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential.

"The biggest problem is how automakers bring down costs and how much infrastructure will be in place," he said.

Hyundai hopes to get a jump on its rivals by offering 1,000 of its FCEVs, overtaking Daimler and Honda Motor, which have leased only small numbers of their fuel-cell vehicles -- the Mercedes B-Class F-Cells and FCX Clarity, respectively. By 2015, Hyundai aims to have the capacity to build 10,000 FCEVs, rising to 100,000 in 2020, when it expects the loss-making business to achieve "economies of scale," Lim said.

Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.

GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.

In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.

Fuel cell EVs solve so many issues -- it's not actually gonna be contest.. We are wasting time and money blowing the national treasure on such a premature development.. Some of the issues that get resolved with fuel cells.

1) Ranges commensurate with ICE vehicles.
2) Fueling times similiar to ICE vehicles.
3) REAL non-polluting fuel sources. FAR less than grid supplied electricity.
4) No need to double electric grid capacity or generating capability
5) Renewables like wind/solar COULD be used off grid to produce hydrogen
6) Natural gas COULD be an interim source of fuel cell power.
7) Less toxic waste stream than battery manufacturing/recycling/disposal


THAT --- is just the surface of why I'm stacking my bets on Hyundai and fuel cells. Battery EVs are gonna be a flash in the pan -- and AGAIN the political policies are gonna be a dollar short and a day late..

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, and best of all. The average homeowner cannot produce his own fuel. Just imagine if the homeowners become indepentdent of the big corperations. Death of our way of life!

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, and best of all. The average homeowner cannot produce his own fuel. Just imagine if the homeowners become indepentdent of the big corperations. Death of our way of life!

You're jokin' right?

 

[Mr. H.]

He never jokes.

Bullshits maybe, but never jokes.

 

[westwall]

Oh, and best of all. The average homeowner cannot produce his own fuel. Just imagine if the homeowners become indepentdent of the big corperations. Death of our way of life!

Probably not true. Eventually the tech will evolve where H can be removed from water in an efficient, cheap way. Then it will be Katie bar the door. You see olfraud, real scientists can and do come up with better ideas all the time.

Batteries suck, they allways suck. Fuel cells are the way forward, to borrow a line from a certain politician, and will supplant the EV's of today very quickly. That is where research should be going instead of the rathole of a 100 year old technology that wasn't able to compete against the ICE's of 100 years ago.

ICE's are better and the batteries are still about the same.

 

[mamooth]

real scientists can and do come up with better ideas all the time

But only for fuel cells, right? According to you, batteries "always suck". Fuel cell tech can evolve, but battery tech can't.

Let's compare two systems:

1. Use electricity.

2. Convert electricity to hydrogen, pressurize the hydrogen, cart the hydrogen around, turn the hydrogen back into electricity, and then use the electricity.

Hmm, which seems more efficient?

 

[westwall]

real scientists can and do come up with better ideas all the time

But only for fuel cells, right? According to you, batteries "always suck". Fuel cell tech can evolve, but battery tech can't.

Let's compare two systems:

1. Use electricity.

2. Convert electricity to hydrogen, pressurize the hydrogen, cart the hydrogen around, turn the hydrogen back into electricity, and then use the electricity.

Hmm, which seems more efficient?

Ummm, you're forgetting some steps there mammie old girl. Step 1. Mine the coal or pump the oil (after drilling for it of course) or process the uranium (after the aforsaid mining procedure), generate electricity with it. Transmit the electricity through miles of cables (that are likewise created by mining and processing) to your little EV. Then charge the batteries (which, yet again, are the result of mining and transporting the product from one side of the planet to the other for manufacturing, using yet more oil....)

Do you get the idea yet? Has it penetrated into your addled brain that electric vehicles are not the simple plug and play you seem to think they are? The sooner you figure out the reality of what you are saying the sooner you will begin to understand the complexity of the technology.

Something, that at the moment, you have no clue of.

 

[mamooth]

Ummm, you're forgetting some steps there mammie old girl.

And most of those steps also have to be done to make hydrogen. If not the same steps, then even more difficult ones.

You don't appear to have thought this through at all. In your magical hydrogen fairyland, big tanks of pressurized hydrogen will just magically appear under every little windmill. Back in the real world, hydrogen like that would have to be made at centralized big facilities that use electricity from the grid. It would lose energy in electrolysis, it would take much energy to pressurize it, much energy to ship it, it would lose energy in reconversion, and all the components involved would take much energy to produce.

So why waste that energy? Your handwaving and ranting doesn't suddenly make it less inefficient. You list the downsides of batteries, but ignore the bigger downsides of hydrogen. Instead of your feelings, show us your numbers.

 

[westwall]

Ummm, you're forgetting some steps there mammie old girl.

And most of those steps also have to be done to make hydrogen. If not the same steps, then even more difficult ones.

You don't appear to have thought this through at all. In your magical hydrogen fairyland, big tanks of pressurized hydrogen will just magically appear under every little windmill. Back in the real world, hydrogen like that would have to be made at centralized big facilities that use electricity from the grid. It would lose energy in electrolysis, it would take much energy to pressurize it, much energy to ship it, it would lose energy in reconversion, and all the components involved would take much energy to produce.

So why waste that energy? Your handwaving and ranting doesn't suddenly make it less inefficient. You list the downsides of batteries, but ignore the bigger downsides of hydrogen. Instead of your feelings, show us your numbers.

I never denied that did I? Nope, you're the one who seems to think that electricity just magically appears at your little socket. Those of us who live in the real world know what it takes to make that electricity.

Clearly you don't.

 

[there4eyeM]

Given that the automobile remains the transport of preference, some way of their being electric powered seems inevitable. Of course, if hydrogen were available, it could be used directly in piston and turbine engines as they presently are and without pollution, but electric motors are easier to control and longer-lasting.

 

[mamooth]

I never denied that did I?

In that case, your claim of fuel cells being totally superior is disproven, by your own admission. So why did you make such a dumb claim?

Nope, you're the one who seems to think that electricity just magically appears at your little socket.

Given I never stated or implied anything like that anywhere, it looks like you've chosen to lie about me. Yes, it's obvious you did so because you were unable to address what I actually said, so you made up a story about what you wish I'd said.

 

[westwall]

I never denied that did I?

In that case, your claim of fuel cells being totally superior is disproven, by your own admission. So why did you make such a dumb claim?

Nope, you're the one who seems to think that electricity just magically appears at your little socket.

Given I never stated or implied anything like that anywhere, it looks like you've chosen to lie about me. Yes, it obvious you did so because you were unable to address what I actually said, so you made up a story about what you wish I'd said.

Your fundamental lack of scientific knowledge is duly noted. Run along little troll and learn something before you make an even greater fool of yourself.

 

[SSDD]

Run along little troll and learn something before you make an even greater fool of yourself.

Is that possible? I have reviewed his/her posts and can't find any examples of really attempting to discuss the topic. Name calling and obviously unfounded claims of superiority seem to be the extent of his/her posts.

 

[Politico]

Toyota was quite clear why they pulled the plug.

And that's all we need are people generating their own hydrogen lol.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have yet to see where they have developed a tank that is practical that has enough capacity to handle the hydrogen needed for long range travel. If you know of such, please provide a link. Otherwise, without such a tank, we are exactly where we are with battery driven EV's.

 

[SSDD]

I have yet to see where they have developed a tank that is practical that has enough capacity to handle the hydrogen needed for long range travel. If you know of such, please provide a link. Otherwise, without such a tank, we are exactly where we are with battery driven EV's.

Except that batteries are already at a dead end. We are already using the most efficent materials known to man now. The materials to make a better battery simply don't exist on earth. Why pour more money into a technology that has gone as far as it can go?

 

[westwall]

Run along little troll and learn something before you make an even greater fool of yourself.

Is that possible? I have reviewed his/her posts and can't find any examples of really attempting to discuss the topic. Name calling and obviously unfounded claims of superiority seem to be the extent of his/her posts.

Pretty much like any 12 year old child.

 

[westwall]

I have yet to see where they have developed a tank that is practical that has enough capacity to handle the hydrogen needed for long range travel. If you know of such, please provide a link. Otherwise, without such a tank, we are exactly where we are with battery driven EV's.

Except for the fact that very little money has been expended on hydrogen research unlike the battery debacle. Given time hydrogen will absolutely supplant the current EV's with little trouble. Of course, there is allways the possibility that something even better will come along.

Just imagine what will happen when true visionaries are given the proper funding instead of diverting it to political pals and hacks.

 

[SSDD]

Just imagine what will happen when true visionaries are given the proper funding instead of diverting it to political pals and hacks.

When there is an actual monetary incentive to coming up with a better technology than the internal combustion engine, the market will provide it. The best and brightest aren't standing around waiting for grant money.....they don't need to.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have yet to see where they have developed a tank that is practical that has enough capacity to handle the hydrogen needed for long range travel. If you know of such, please provide a link. Otherwise, without such a tank, we are exactly where we are with battery driven EV's.

Except that batteries are already at a dead end. We are already using the most efficent materials known to man now. The materials to make a better battery simply don't exist on earth. Why pour more money into a technology that has gone as far as it can go?

Would you care to provide a link that supports that statement?

storage - What's the highest theoretical energy density for a chemical battery? - Electrical Engineering


I don't know the actual answer to this question, but I know a least upper bound to the answer, and a means of figuring out the real answer.

Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)

We know that the highest MTSE is at least 1166.4 Wh/kg; you could use his method to calculate the same value for other chemistries, but the search space is pretty large.

I've also seen references on the internet to Li/O2 and Al/O2 batteries with MTSE of 2815 and 5200 Wh/kg, respectively. Not sure how credible those references are. Later references, like this 2008 article in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, suggest that the MTSE for a Li/O2 cell is around 1400 Wh/kg.

Looks to me like the possibilities are there for batteries 20 times as energy dense as those we have now. That is a bit far from being as far as we can go with batteries.

The next question is, what kind of engineer would state what you just did without any kind of research into the subject. After all, I am just a lowly millwright, and it took me less than 30 seconds to find this site.