|
|
|
|
 |
MalcolmR
 |
|
.
Electric car sales sustainable only with subsidies?
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/electric-car-sales-lose-spark-around-the-world/story-e6freon6-1226447044931
Is this efficient?
It's icy.
Malcolm
:)
|
A77
|
|
|
most hybrid sales are sustainable withOut subsidies either. Perhaps Prius aside but it would not have got where it is without subsidies.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Well Honda got it right with planning only a few Fit EVs for the next years.
Batteries are supposed to drop a lot in price - in about 10 years...
http://www.plugincars.com/lithium-ion-battery-prices-drop-160-kwh-2025-123193.html
|
danielgr
|
|
Even with subsidies I don't think they are... This is simply one of those examples where politiciens waste public founds following mindless voters for which anything green seems good regardless of any real cost-benefit consideration.
Nor even the most extremist green could justify the money being spent on those cars only a few wealthy ones buy to go around their neighborhood. As if there were not much better ways of spending the same money to achieve much greener goals. It's the same bullshit as with solar panels, but it can't be helped since people are being brainwashed on a daily basis. If only they put the money into research, maybe we would see the day when those cars would actually make sense for anyone.
And I keep applauding Honda for not releasing yet another tax-black-hole, keep their product with limited supply until it's good and affordable enough for real customers to actually pay for it. I sure hope they don't change that position and follow Nissan/GM way.
|
CR-V9
|
|
|
I actually see their future. I think they are going to use electric cars and buses in cities and towns. Instead of one big bus, they can have smaller electric bus modules and add them together depending on passenger flow. Cars for city official business or mailman if they will be around. 100mil range is good enough, I'd guess. And I think the infrastracture is here already. They only have to build enough recharge capacity at their garages.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
Electric car sales sustainable only with subsidies? |
The vehicles listed in that article either have serious design problems or are mediocre replacements for gasoline vehicles. The are not poor or mediocre because they are electric, but because they are designed badly.
The Mitsubshi i-MiEV is ugly, has poor ride quality, poor seating for the driver, and a lousy interior. It doesn't have good range or charge particularly quickly: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/Vehicles/2012-mitsubishi-i-miev/
A good electric car, like the Tesla Model S, can compete on its merits: powerful but efficient engine, spacious interior and cargo capacity, and the combination of superior battery management plus supercharging stations that can refill the 250-300 mile range battery to 80% in 30-45 minutes. Great handling due to low center of gravity and excellent NVH and ride quality also help. The Model S is expensive, but in the ballpark of well equipped BMW 5 and 7 series sedans. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-tesla-model-s-reviews.
No surprise that the badly designed Mitsubishi barely sells, while Tesla has a 10,000 customer waiting list. If you ordered a Tesla today, you wouldn't get it for more than a year. It's in demand, regardless of subsidies (the $7500 tax credit is pocket change anyways to the clientele for full-size sedans)
Design matters.
I don't think ToV members would point to a poorly designed gasoline car and say that "Gasoline car sales sustainable only with subsidies". That would make no sense. There are well designed gasoline cars, and poorly designed ones as well.
The same holds true for Electric cars. Automobiles stand and fall on the merits of their design, and not necessarily on the type of powertrain.
I've discussed this numerous time with regards to why Honda's hybrids have largely failed. They didn't fail because they were hybrids, but because their design was generally not good or not useful to the customers.
I fail to see why people still do not understand this.
|
danielgr
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
I actually see their future. I think they are going to use electric cars and buses in cities and towns. Instead of one big bus, they can have smaller electric bus modules and add them together depending on passenger flow. Cars for city official business or mailman if they will be around. 100mil range is good enough, I'd guess. And I think the infrastracture is here already. They only have to build enough recharge capacity at their garages.
|
They are specially pointless in a country like Japan where people are becoming increasingly vocal against nuclear power and the only realistic alternative they have are fossile fuels. Take the almighty Leaf using Japanese electricity January to March 2012 and you'd be emitting more CO2 than a Prius or Aqua, which are, well..., Japan's best selling cars.
So you get a situation where the government is giving a few rich-green-fashion-victims enough money so that a low income family could buy a kei-car. They are subsidizing the rich with everyone's money, well, in Japan's case with everyone's debt, because after all it is the developped country with the highest per capita debt in the world, enough for us all to work a couple of years for free if we were to pay it back.
Now you tell me where do those cars make sense, how many of them would be sold if people had actually to pay for their real price, and how would that help the environment... Kei cars remain a much better option for anything EVs could work except greening your image.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Daniel, I should have added "However, I think electric cars for indivisual use would be severely limited.".
Question of if electric cars use more CO2 today is another thing. Yes, they are verly related but they're different industries. Automakers are not power companies, maybe Hyundai is. Honda can't change what sourse to use to produce electrocity. That's power companies issues. So they are two separate issues. Issues for policy makers or infrastructure issues. Both issues should be approched at the same time eventhough would be approched separately or independently.
And policy should be made depending on their practicality. If solar panels become cost effective for indivisual to install at their house to supply their own use then it would be more effective, practical and efficient. If it were cost effective. Under developed countries have developed sell phone infrastructure much faster than developed countrie becaus they didn't have to switch from the old hard-wired system to wireless.
Again, but what I meant was city buses, city transportations for their works and other within city limited business uses where they can have a place to park and recharge at night.
|
danielgr
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
Daniel, I should have added "However, I think electric cars for indivisual use would be severely limited.".
Question of if electric cars use more CO2 today is another thing. Yes, they are verly related but they're different industries. Automakers are not power companies, maybe Hyundai is. Honda can't change what sourse to use to produce electrocity. That's power companies issues. So they are two separate issues. Issues for policy makers or infrastructure issues. Both issues should be approched at the same time eventhough would be approched separately or independently.
And policy should be made depending on their practicality. If solar panels become cost effective for indivisual to install at their house to supply their own use then it would be more effective, practical and efficient. If it were cost effective. Under developed countries have developed sell phone infrastructure much faster than developed countrie becaus they didn't have to switch from the old hard-wired system to wireless.
Again, but what I meant was city buses, city transportations for their works and other within city limited business uses where they can have a place to park and recharge at night.
|
To me you follow the typical Japanese approach of dividing complex problems into several parts and treat them independently. That approach has for sure it's merits, and there is as well an old said in Europe "divide and conquer". However, to me it wrongly assumes two things:
- that resources are unlimited.
- that smaller problems are uncorrelated, or independent if you want, so that solving one of them doesn't affect negatively the others.
That approach is therefore plausible when the challenge is small when compared with the available resources, or when there are so many variables it's truly impossible to determine their mutual correlations so assuming independence is the only way forward.
The truth is, the environmental conundrum is a huge and complex affair, but the number of variables isn't so big and correlations aren't always that obscure, so imho the Japanese way inappropriate to optimally solve it.
Anyone that has spent a bit of time on the magnitude of the environmental challenges ahead knows that the task is so huge we may never reach anywhere close to a decent end.
Anyone that has seen the rhythm at which Japanese debt increases knows that resources (time, work, money) are indeed pretty much limited.
So you say "let's consider city-buses" for example. I say with the money a municipality would spend in buying an electric bus they could buy two or three natural gas powered ones. The result would be greater service for the community and fewer emissions, yet most likely wouldn't get nearly the same popular support because of people brainwashing. The same money could also be used to rethink the community public transport so that it became more useful for everyone and more people could leave their cars at home without giving up on having a convenient life. Obviously it'd be great if you could do everything, but the truth is outside the largest cities public transportation is disappearing in Japan, service is horrible, buses are as old as it gets, and little by little cars are becoming the only alternative. So maybe it's time to stop thinking one thing at a time and start talcking the real problem altogether. Sure you'll need to divide it at some point, but you'll never find the optimum way to divide it and the optimal resources to allocate to each part if you refuse to see the big picture.
As for EVs, solar panels or whatever, imho money shouldn't be used in subsidizing production of inefficient technology that isn't ready to address our needs/concerns, but into the R&D that is required to make the leap forward. The money used on those production subsidies isn't paving the way for the future, it is simply filling the pockets of a few politiciens and corporate elites while providing self-satisfaction to green fundamentalists.
|
danielgr
|
|
PS: Again, that is also one of the reasons why I've always liked Honda. They seem to spend an awful less time begging at ministry offices than other automakers, and more time into developing products consumers actually want, products that answer the maximum amount of needs with the minimum possible investment.
Love the fact that they remain the only large manufacturer outside major lobbying associations such as European ACEA or US Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and that they they never move into full-blown production until they have a product that doesn't need to be subsidized to work.
Love that despite having what some believe to be the best EV around they keep selling it in limited numbers, while launching R&D projects to actually study how such a vehicle could fit a community mobility needs (like those currently ongoing with Google/Standford in the US or Saitama in Japan). That is the kind of process that actually moves us forward in the most efficient way, and for sure one of the reasons why such a small company remains a competitive force among the industry big guns. At Honda, they can't afford to waste, and imho in an ever increasingly competitive world, Japan cannot afford it either.
|
Waldo
|
|
Here's the scenario I see as the only way that all electric cars will ever become mainstream.
1. All electric cars will use identical batteries. Perhaps more than one for larger cars.
2. Batteries will become a service, not owned by the consumer.
3. Battery replacement stations will become part of gasoline stations. You drive your electric car over an automated device that removes your depleted battery and replaces it with a fully charged one. This would have to take no more time than filling your tank does now.
4. Driving range between replacements needs to be over 250 miles.
5. You would be billed for the amount of electricity that it takes to recharge the depleted battery you returned.
Until people do not feel mentally tethered to their home recharging station, there will be huge resistance to purchasing electric cars.
|
CR-V9
|
|
I'd never explain enough that's why I don't talk politics.
I was kind of talking from practical and realistic point of view. It is always the best to look at the issue as a whole and approch it as a whole but we are in capitalist and free market society. No one person or body can decide what we all will do. Even power industries, oil, coal, natural gas are different business entities, and some of them are poweful and bigger than some governments.
And it's always a 'chicken or egg' problem. Technology itself too has to develop and progress in real world too, can't just wait for power company to get ready first. Timing mismatch of a couple of decades or more is not that important. They both have to go forward. One day they will meet. Thing is we can't pick whatever we want when we're ready. Everything has move forward at the same time.
Nobody is strong enough to tell every player in the world to move in the same step. It is more like steering business and markets to some direction to move forward to. Sometimes one area is puching others and other time other area is puching back. It is like playing a 'Go'. I still can't explain it well nor enough though. In other words I'm not looking for an answer or solution. I'm just wishing for us to move toward some direction and one day we will get there somehow.
|
danielgr
|
|
Waldo wrote:
Here's the scenario I see as the only way that all electric cars will ever become mainstream.
1. All electric cars will use identical batteries. Perhaps more than one for larger cars.
2. Batteries will become a service, not owned by the consumer.
3. Battery replacement stations will become part of gasoline stations. You drive your electric car over an automated device that removes your depleted battery and replaces it with a fully charged one. This would have to take no more time than filling your tank does now.
4. Driving range between replacements needs to be over 250 miles.
5. You would be billed for the amount of electricity that it takes to recharge the depleted battery you returned.
Until people do not feel mentally tethered to their home recharging station, there will be huge resistance to purchasing electric cars.
|
Personally, I don't think such a scenario is likely, because in an EV the battery is likely to represent the biggest added value chunk, and what you propose is letting automakers out of it. Why would they build such cars?
Nissan and Mitsubishi were the first ones to bring "EVs targeted to regular consumers" not because they had the EV tech before the rest, but because they got the battery tech ready first. And for sure one of the reasons why Honda is not going to push hard on the Fit EV is because the battery pack is 100% made by Toshiba.
Besides, that is one of the ideas that have been touted by Renault&Nissan alliance for long, but as much as it may sound good in overall terms, I'd say the devil is in the details. Here are some points of consideration:
- Having standard batteries would be a serious handicap to advance EV tech, which still needs much development if it's ever to become significant. Having standard batteries would be close to having standard gas engines...
- Having readily accessible battery packages implies making big packaging compromises, and one of the key problems in EVs vs. traditional cars is precisely packaging. By forcing the battery to be readily available yet with well isolated and protected high voltage lines, designing cars would become a nightmare.
- Batteries degrade with time, so will there be a market for "cheap used batteries" and "expensive fresh batteries"? Is it something that can be controlled? Are people ready to change their car's behaviour all of a sudden after a "refuel"?
- There is no way people would pay only "the amount of electricity used". The fact is that most of the cost wouldn't go to fill them up, but in their purchase and logistics. That is what consumers would end up paying when changing their batteries, and it may end up not being so different from what they are already paying to own them. The logistics part itself represents an additional cost that may end up offsetting the advantages of non-private ownership.
|
danielgr
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
I'd never explain enough that's why I don't talk politics.
I was kind of talking from practical and realistic point of view. It is always the best to look at the issue as a whole and approch it as a whole but we are in capitalist and free market society. No one person or body can decide what we all will do. Even power industries, oil, coal, natural gas are different business entities, and some of them are poweful and bigger than some governments.
And it's always a 'chicken or egg' problem. Technology itself too has to develop and progress in real world too, can't just wait for power company to get ready first. Timing mismatch of a couple of decades or more is not that important. They both have to go forward. One day they will meet. Thing is we can't pick whatever we want when we're ready. Everything has move forward at the same time.
Nobody is strong enough to tell every player in the world to move in the same step. It is more like steering business and markets to some direction to move forward to. Sometimes one area is puching others and other time other area is puching back. It is like playing a 'Go'. I still can't explain it well nor enough though. In other words I'm not looking for an answer or solution. I'm just wishing for us to move toward some direction and one day we will get there somehow.
|
Well, this thread started asking whether or not EVs could be sustainable without subsidies. Personally, I was simply addressing the OPs question, and whenever you start talking subsidies you are talking politics, because subsidies = policies.
This thread was never about EV technological aspects, and there is no way around it. Personally, I do not agree that "everything has to move forward", not every solution in the world goes forward, only those that make most sense to human beings, those that provide more of what we want with the smallest investment, that go forward. The rest are phased out and forgot sooner or later.
- For EVs to make sense clean electricity supply is essential, and for any company to be ahead of its time has never been a good thing, but a wasteful investment.
- For EVs tech to be developed there is no need to waste gov money into subsidizing production activities, there is need to use it for R&D. If the Japanese governemnt wants to create R&D grants available to manufacturers, I'm really all for it, it's sure worth give it a try, and it may be acceptable to let society share the R&D risk.
Again, I have nothing against Carlos to push their idea, same way Honda keeps pushing for their hydrogen cars. That kind of forward thinking is obviously needed, and certainly Honda shouldn't wait until the infrastructure is ready to work on it. As you said, each one has to do its part or we will never reach the goal. But there is a difference between maturing a technology for decades, assuming the risk for the sake of future opportunities, and emptying taxpayers accounts to sell a useless toy that benefits no-one.
Again, Honda's Fit EV is already better than the leaf on everything, yet there is no need to abuse subsidies to sell tens of thousands of them around the world.
Nissan would have enough Leafs around for any kind of engineering testing purposes if they sold them with zero subsidies. Selling more doesn't help them making a better next-gen Leaf, it just drives their marketing, and governments should not pay for private companies marketing. And I'm tired of governments spending money to subsidize the rich. That's all I'm saying.
|
owequitit
|
|
Ultimately, until the technology matures to the point where it makes longer term financial sense (which will require a lot more changes beyond battery capacities) electrics will continue to need subsidies because the technology doesn't make sense.
|
WongKN
|
|
|
After testing virtually -every- IMA model in Honda's current line-up (only thing missing is the CR-Z CVT variant which I should get in a couple of month's time), my opinion is stronger than ever that we -really- need a big breakthrough in battery technology before hybrids or EVs can be feasible, even without the question of subsidy or no subsidy. I seriously think the idea - Honda's idea of the IMA hybrid - makes sense, BUT is simply let-down by either too small a battery charge capacity and too bulky a battery pack, actually -both. The difference between the new 9G HCH with its stronger IMA motor and LiOn battery pack, versus the older though still current models like Insight and Jazz/Fit Hybrids with their NiMH packs and older IMA motors is quite apparent. Given the good result when the batteries are properly charged, if the issue of extra bulk and battery charge life (and battery life itself) can be addressed, by the next step in battery technology, then I would even dare argue that the IMA might well be the only proper way to do an NA car... Not now though.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Daniel, it is always well thought detailed analysis from you. I think so everything you've said, too.
Thing is EVs are competing against ICE which is pretty much a matured technology. It is not like competing agaist horse drawn buggies and carriages now. But even ICE, it was after Mr. Mercedes invented a caburator ICE finally took off, kind of, wasn't it? Yet it was still among the wealhiest and limited use. Specialy sports cars/cnvertibles were their toys.
So as Wong said "... Not now though.".
And developing technology is it just don't happen in lab alone. It has to be used in field by the public. Selling more just doesn't equate to be better R&D. True. But it will create an enveronment big enough to create the support infrastructure in technology, materials and people resourses wise. I believe in the 17% factor. More people involed in the field better chances there will be that something new or breakthrough will happen.
And lastly policy. I think when there are more than 3 people there is politics. I think it comes down to what or what direction we would like to move forward to. In this case it is not just it's for the technology's sake. If people believe CO2 in the atmosphere do nothing but better for plant growth then all this thing is a techno trivial. (I don't talk AGW here so ...)
As I said before, things don't happen until things and peole are in the right place and at the right time.
Now and then we have "su-te-i-shi" as in a 'Go' game.
(No, nothing. I've got nothing. Shit happens. - Kwai change Caine 2012)
|
WongKN
|
|
|
Wait, I don't understand why CO2 is being mentioned for hybrids because what we are against is carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. I don't think even the cleanest petrol engine in the world can get rid of carbon dioxide emissions.
|
danielgr
|
|
WongKN wrote:
Wait, I don't understand why CO2 is being mentioned for hybrids because what we are against is carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. I don't think even the cleanest petrol engine in the world can get rid of carbon dioxide emissions.
|
Nope, we, CR-V9, Honda, and me are discussing CO2. I do not know in Malaysia, but at least in countries like Japan CO is a non-issue because all cars (bar some sport variants) are properly calyzed and well maintained.
In terms of air pollution any gasoline modern car can achieve something like California PZEV ratings, which basically mean that their exhaust is cleaner than the air of many global cities. In Japan, consumer non-kei cars exhaust is extremely clean, and nobody is really pushing for EVs in that sense.
What a country like Japan eyes with EVs is both reducing its dependency on oil and its green-house emissions, namely CO2. Just in case, nobody is arguing here what is the use for it, which to me has long be a taboo theme in TOV (just have a look at the recent thread opened by P54 on Honda's LCA approach). So nobody has, and hope nobody will, mentioned "what for" in this thread? My only answer would be "who cares".
What CR-V9 and me are (rather peacefully and respectfully despite not agreeing) discussing here, is the merits of current subsidies-driven EVs in achieving that objective. The objective itself ain't part of the discussion, but it's pretty clear.
|
TonyEX
|
|
WongKN wrote:
After testing virtually -every- IMA model in Honda's current line-up (only thing missing is the CR-Z CVT variant which I should get in a couple of month's time), my opinion is stronger than ever that we -really- need a big breakthrough in battery technology before hybrids or EVs can be feasible, even without the question of subsidy or no subsidy. I seriously think the idea - Honda's idea of the IMA hybrid - makes sense, BUT is simply let-down by either too small a battery charge capacity and too bulky a battery pack, actually -both. The difference between the new 9G HCH with its stronger IMA motor and LiOn battery pack, versus the older though still current models like Insight and Jazz/Fit Hybrids with their NiMH packs and older IMA motors is quite apparent. Given the good result when the batteries are properly charged, if the issue of extra bulk and battery charge life (and battery life itself) can be addressed, by the next step in battery technology, then I would even dare argue that the IMA might well be the only proper way to do an NA car... Not now though.
|
Battery based EVs make no sense at all.
And IMA per se should not be used for primary driving force but simply to recapture energy and assist in the low end. A system just to increase the efficiency of the power train.
IMHO, stuff like the Fit EV and HMCs IMA vII are just a stepping stone for a hydrogen fuel cell.
That's the future, because batteries make little sense now.
Of course, perhaps a micro fission thorium reactor might make sense too. ;-)
|
WongKN
|
|
Me, I am reluctant to accept any technology which is based on our natural resources because of the history of uncontrolled usage. Oh yes, initially there is always the claim that so-and-so resources are ample and practically inexhaustible. But it always end up different.
My main issues with hydrogen is again that it is a natural resource. If we adopt hydrogen, we -must- use hydrogen. Of course we argue that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and our ocean is pure hydrogen and oxygen. But is it that simple ? How much energy do we need to extract hydrogen from water ? I suspect more energy that we can get back out from the end result. Where does that energy to do it come from then ?
With something like electric power, we have a choice of -how- we generate it. It can be coal, or dams, or we can pollute the environment and burn petrol or diesel, or burn cleaner natural gas, harness a volcano, harness the waves, solar panels, windmills, using a million mice running on threadmills, forced slave labour turning generators 12hours a day, create the society imagined in 'The Matrix'... A bit tongue in cheek, but you get my message I think. :)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
TonyE wrote:
WongKN wrote:
After testing virtually -every- IMA model in Honda's current line-up (only thing missing is the CR-Z CVT variant which I should get in a couple of month's time), my opinion is stronger than ever that we -really- need a big breakthrough in battery technology before hybrids or EVs can be feasible, even without the question of subsidy or no subsidy. I seriously think the idea - Honda's idea of the IMA hybrid - makes sense, BUT is simply let-down by either too small a battery charge capacity and too bulky a battery pack, actually -both. The difference between the new 9G HCH with its stronger IMA motor and LiOn battery pack, versus the older though still current models like Insight and Jazz/Fit Hybrids with their NiMH packs and older IMA motors is quite apparent. Given the good result when the batteries are properly charged, if the issue of extra bulk and battery charge life (and battery life itself) can be addressed, by the next step in battery technology, then I would even dare argue that the IMA might well be the only proper way to do an NA car... Not now though.
|
Battery based EVs make no sense at all. except maybe in cities for very short commutes. Yet even a very small car such as a Smart car would provide versatility and flexibility. Far cheaper too.
And IMA per se should not be used for primary driving force but simply to recapture energy and assist in the low end. A system just to increase the efficiency of the power train. yes
IMHO, stuff like the Fit EV and HMCs IMA vII are just a stepping stone for a hydrogen fuel cell. yes
That's the future, because batteries make little sense now. 9b]seems that's sound conclusion
Of course, perhaps a micro fission thorium reactor might make sense too. ;-) providing it has short front overhangs, of course :)
|
.
There's a reason why electric cars were around 100 years ago and have not gone mainstream.
Malcolm
:)
|
superchg2
|
|
WongKN wrote:
using a million mice running on threadmills:)
|
...or you could use 2 guinea pigs in a tiny boat to generate electricity!
|
3stageD15B
|
|
We are much closer to EV production on a large scale than fuel-cell production. Granted, a new breakthrough in batteries is needed to bring the range up and the costs down. Yet - similar challenges face fuel cell vehicles - but on a much grander scale. Fuel cell vehicles are really just EVs anyway....where the challenge involves bringing the costs down from one million dollars per vehicle compared to about $35,000 currently for a modern EV.
In the meantime - recent video reviews like this instill much hope for the performance potential of EVs.
http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2012-lightning-motorcycles-exclusive-first-ride-video-91402.html
Mike
|
WongKN
|
|
|
That's the thing which fuel-cell doesn't make sense to me. First we have to produce the fuel, hydrogen, for e.g. Since it doesn't really exist in abundance in its natural state, but always in combination with another element, e.g. water, H2O. So we spend energy to extract and produce the hydrogen. Then we use this hydrogen in a fuel cell engine to produce electricity to power the motors to power the wheels. There are too many stages, and each stage, we lose energy as we can never get a perfect 100% efficient process. Even from the conservationist point of view, I am afraid I can't see any advantage of this, as compared to purely EV.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Battery based EVs make no sense at all. except maybe in cities for very short commutes. Yet even a very small car such as a Smart car would provide versatility and flexibility. Far cheaper too.
There's a reason why electric cars were around 100 years ago and have not gone mainstream. |
|
Did either of you read my reply above @ 08-11-2012 16:24?
It is easy to pick and choose some lackluster EVs and say that because these EVs are bad, all EVs don't make sense. The existence of the Tesla Model S proves otherwise.
As battery technology improves, the 265-300 mile range will only get better.
WongKN wrote:
That's the thing which fuel-cell doesn't make sense to me. First we have to produce the fuel, hydrogen, for e.g. Since it doesn't really exist in abundance in its natural state, but always in combination with another element, e.g. water, H2O. So we spend energy to extract and produce the hydrogen. Then we use this hydrogen in a fuel cell engine to produce electricity to power the motors to power the wheels. There are too many stages, and each stage, we lose energy as we can never get a perfect 100% efficient process. Even from the conservationist point of view, I am afraid I can't see any advantage of this, as compared to purely EV. |
Hydrogen has the advantage of fast refueling.
For personal transport like a Tesla Model S, most people can just plug in the vehicle at night like a mobile phone and be ready to go in the morning. The 265 mile EPA range is far more than most people need in 1 day. A Tesla 440 Volt supercharger can recharge the 85 kWh battery to 100% in 1 hour. The idea is that on long trips, the driver stops at a rest stop to eat a meal, use restrooms, for about 30-45 mins, and charges the car while doing this.
For trucking, this might not work so well. A big rig is going to need a massively larger battery than a sedan, and truckers on tight schedules are not going to want to have to stop for an hour to fuel up. The fast fueling of hydrogen may make more sense for this application.
The chief obstacles to fuel cells are cost and infrastructure. Platinum for catalyst is expensive. Unlike electric lines, there is no widespread distribution system for hydrogen gas.
|
danielgr
|
|
WongKN wrote:
Me, I am reluctant to accept any technology which is based on our natural resources because of the history of uncontrolled usage. Oh yes, initially there is always the claim that so-and-so resources are ample and practically inexhaustible. But it always end up different.
My main issues with hydrogen is again that it is a natural resource. If we adopt hydrogen, we -must- use hydrogen. Of course we argue that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and our ocean is pure hydrogen and oxygen. But is it that simple ? How much energy do we need to extract hydrogen from water ? I suspect more energy that we can get back out from the end result. Where does that energy to do it come from then ?
With something like electric power, we have a choice of -how- we generate it. It can be coal, or dams, or we can pollute the environment and burn petrol or diesel, or burn cleaner natural gas, harness a volcano, harness the waves, solar panels, windmills, using a million mice running on threadmills, forced slave labour turning generators 12hours a day, create the society imagined in 'The Matrix'... A bit tongue in cheek, but you get my message I think. :)
|
Hydrogen is not a "natural resource", as one that would get consumed in hydrogen-powered cars. Hydrogen is an "energy vector", it's nothing more than a "fuel-like battery". What you get back from it on a fuel cell is what you spend during the hydrolysis of water (to split H and O), or reforming gas (to split C and H), minus the obvious loses on any energetic transformation.
The energetic deal is that it's possible to make the overall process more efficient than simply burning gasoline or diesel, so the overall balance is favorable. The problem, as with BEVs, is the cost and packaging in real world cars, and the infrastructure that is simply not existent. But hydrogen offers the same flexibility as electricity, well, actually even more, since you can extract hydrogen without producing electricity first by either gas reforming or high temperature chemical reactions involving acids. It should be for example possible to build nuclear powerplants that use their thermal power directly to produce hydrogen, without the inherent loses when producing electricity (where about 66% of the energy is lost as heat).
And btw, as an energy vector, hydrogen also has the advantage of being the universe most abondant element, simply because it's the lightest and simplest of all. There is hydrogen everywhere you look at, starting in the water, going up to the atmosphere, or in all carbon-chemistry mollecules that form living beings. So if what I just said sounds like chinese, just remember two things:
1) It's readily available everywhere
2) It's not used or consumed on a fuel cell car
|
superchg2
|
|
danielgr wrote:
I think you have some pretty wrong missconceptions about hydrogen Wong.
|
No extra points are given for pomposity on TOV, danielgr. You might also want to use spell check.
|
danielgr
|
|
TonyE wrote:
WongKN wrote:
After testing virtually -every- IMA model in Honda's current line-up (only thing missing is the CR-Z CVT variant which I should get in a couple of month's time), my opinion is stronger than ever that we -really- need a big breakthrough in battery technology before hybrids or EVs can be feasible, even without the question of subsidy or no subsidy. I seriously think the idea - Honda's idea of the IMA hybrid - makes sense, BUT is simply let-down by either too small a battery charge capacity and too bulky a battery pack, actually -both. The difference between the new 9G HCH with its stronger IMA motor and LiOn battery pack, versus the older though still current models like Insight and Jazz/Fit Hybrids with their NiMH packs and older IMA motors is quite apparent. Given the good result when the batteries are properly charged, if the issue of extra bulk and battery charge life (and battery life itself) can be addressed, by the next step in battery technology, then I would even dare argue that the IMA might well be the only proper way to do an NA car... Not now though.
|
Battery based EVs make no sense at all.
And IMA per se should not be used for primary driving force but simply to recapture energy and assist in the low end. A system just to increase the efficiency of the power train.
IMHO, stuff like the Fit EV and HMCs IMA vII are just a stepping stone for a hydrogen fuel cell.
That's the future, because batteries make little sense now.
Of course, perhaps a micro fission thorium reactor might make sense too. ;-)
|
Actually, where Toyota system is superior, and where Honda needs to and will concentrate in the future, is in that the drivetrain loses of electric-drive are close to zero.
That means that when driving in EV mode the car is unbelivably efficient, something no gasoline car can match, and therefore it is pretty interesting to use the electric motor to actually drive the car, and not just assist it. The key is in how to achieve it without the need of bulky and heavy parts whose weight would counter its inherent advantages. That is where a car like the Prius gets most of its FE, because by experience the actual ammount of battery that is charged when braking is minimum, and both IMA and Synergy Drive charge mainly using the gasoline engine (be it directly like in the Toyota or indirectly like in the Honda).
I tell you, if only I could shut down the gasoline engine on my CR-Z when I'm not in need of serious power...
|
TonyEX
|
|
danielgr wrote:
TonyE wrote:
WongKN wrote:
After testing virtually -every- IMA model in Honda's current line-up (only thing missing is the CR-Z CVT variant which I should get in a couple of month's time), my opinion is stronger than ever that we -really- need a big breakthrough in battery technology before hybrids or EVs can be feasible, even without the question of subsidy or no subsidy. I seriously think the idea - Honda's idea of the IMA hybrid - makes sense, BUT is simply let-down by either too small a battery charge capacity and too bulky a battery pack, actually -both. The difference between the new 9G HCH with its stronger IMA motor and LiOn battery pack, versus the older though still current models like Insight and Jazz/Fit Hybrids with their NiMH packs and older IMA motors is quite apparent. Given the good result when the batteries are properly charged, if the issue of extra bulk and battery charge life (and battery life itself) can be addressed, by the next step in battery technology, then I would even dare argue that the IMA might well be the only proper way to do an NA car... Not now though.
|
Battery based EVs make no sense at all.
And IMA per se should not be used for primary driving force but simply to recapture energy and assist in the low end. A system just to increase the efficiency of the power train.
IMHO, stuff like the Fit EV and HMCs IMA vII are just a stepping stone for a hydrogen fuel cell.
That's the future, because batteries make little sense now.
Of course, perhaps a micro fission thorium reactor might make sense too. ;-)
|
Actually, where Toyota system is superior, and where Honda needs to and will concentrate in the future, is in that the drivetrain loses of electric-drive are close to zero.
That means that when driving in EV mode the car is unbelivably efficient, something no gasoline car can match, and therefore it is pretty interesting to use the electric motor to actually drive the car, and not just assist it. The key is in how to achieve it without the need of bulky and heavy parts whose weight would counter its inherent advantages. That is where a car like the Prius gets most of its FE, because by experience the actual ammount of battery that is charged when braking is minimum, and both IMA and Synergy Drive charge mainly using the gasoline engine (be it directly like in the Toyota or indirectly like in the Honda).
I tell you, if only I could shut down the gasoline engine on my CR-Z when I'm not in need of serious power...
|
Honda's EVs and Clarity are indentical except in one thing..
The onboard source of electricity
Hence you could take the big batteries and just put in a fuel cell and a "standard" IMA battery.
Then you got... the Clarity....
Now then, when running in electric mode, you have your efficiency... there is never any kind of concession made to an internal combustion engine because there is none.
Another thing... fuel cells and hydrogen generation are perfect as batteries for solar panel cells. In the daytime you can store the excess power by creating hydrogen and at night time you release the electricity in a fuel cell. I think the system efficiency is over 80%. So, for a 'round the clock, off the grid system, this is much safer and elegant than having a bunch of automotive batteries out on a shed and some type of DC->AC converter.
Thorium fusion is indeed a possibility. Using Thorium as an atomic power source is much safer than uranium. The reason why the latter was chosen is because it can be used to fashion bomb material, whereas thorium will not yield such. It is also a far less toxic material to boot.
And yes, no overhang.. strictly mid engine.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
