Solid-State Batteries

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What you are getting into with these ideas of solid-state batteries is  what I term  "the rust principle" of business.  The community (in this case, of EV builders) will continue to use batteries, in whatever form, simply because that is what the rest of the players are using.  And because the other players use them, it becomes a self-fulfilling dynamic, where the continuing use justifies further use, and development cash is pushed into that one specific technology.

But when you think about it, that is all rather silly.  Those batteries are bulky, they are heavy, their carriage requires sturdy suspensions, and they tend to cost a lot of money.  All kinds of other solutions are out there.  And there are likely solutions that we have not even thought of.  For example: 

Suppose that roads are built with specific lanes, enforced by having two strips of concrete and the auto or bus has to stay within those strips or else be running on grass.  To understand this, I invite you to contemplate this German-built dedicated roadway  (only buses currently allowed):

 

Once you have created this type of roadway, which is easy enough to do  (and costs a lot less than a conventional paved road, and also can be cast in sections in a factory under controlled conditions, then taken to the field and dropped on the ground), the traffic is effectively obliged to run within a narrow set of parallel tracks.  From there, it is easy enough to string an overhead trolley wire, and have some form of pantagraph or shoe-slider on a pole, the way it was done with the old interurban cars.  Your "battery" or for that matter your IC engine or even external-combustion engine, or your fuel-cell motor, or your nat-gas motor,  can be available in the event you need to make a short detour from the roadway, without wire.  With automatic pantagraph retract and extension, easy enough to do,  you just removed a ton of weight and cost from your "electric" auto, truck or bus.  Developing this type of technology is easy enough to do. 

Would this ever happen?  Not likely.  The technology has headed off into one direction, self-contained battery packs, mostly due to a vast investment of CAPEX in the on-board battery concept.  Had that Chinese investment not been made, it is likely that all sorts of other inventions would be out there puttering around, including both Stirling engines and steam cars.  Even, possibly, flywheel-powered buses.  They do not get developed as there is nobody doing the venture capital into those directions - all because one player  (the Chinese) decided to go the battery route. 

this is why I call it the "rust principle."  What is holding that boat together is the accumulated rust. The boat just keeps sailing along, with no real steel in that hull - it is all rust.  As long as you have that rust, you will keep on sailing. 

There are exceptions such as Brazils multifuel cars that burn ethanol, gasoline, or CNG. Here is a recent GM innovation https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gm-revives-tripower-name-silverado-four-cylinder/

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

16 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

this is why I call it the "rust principle."  What is holding that boat together is the accumulated rust. The boat just keeps sailing along, with no real steel in that hull - it is all rust.  As long as you have that rust, you will keep on sailing. 

Interesting principle and I think certainly pertinent. But, Jan, how durable is rust? This would open up a fascinating branch of discussion. When the rust breaks down, what happens to Volkswagen, basically.

[DA? + 301]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:04 AM, Rodent said:

 Are there numbers for how most people feel an EV could meet their needs? Seems like EVs would fall into a similar category as renewables in general.

just not there yet

The way people feel and reality are normally two very different things. Just look at the normal trips taken by people, it isn't very far.

[DA? + 301]

18 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What you are getting into with these ideas of solid-state batteries is  what I term  "the rust principle" of business.  The community (in this case, of EV builders) will continue to use batteries, in whatever form, simply because that is what the rest of the players are using.  And because the other players use them, it becomes a self-fulfilling dynamic, where the continuing use justifies further use, and development cash is pushed into that one specific technology.

But when you think about it, that is all rather silly.  Those batteries are bulky, they are heavy, their carriage requires sturdy suspensions, and they tend to cost a lot of money.  All kinds of other solutions are out there.  And there are likely solutions that we have not even thought of.  For example: 

Suppose that roads are built with specific lanes, enforced by having two strips of concrete and the auto or bus has to stay within those strips or else be running on grass.  To understand this, I invite you to contemplate this German-built dedicated roadway  (only buses currently allowed):

 

Once you have created this type of roadway, which is easy enough to do  (and costs a lot less than a conventional paved road, and also can be cast in sections in a factory under controlled conditions, then taken to the field and dropped on the ground), the traffic is effectively obliged to run within a narrow set of parallel tracks.  From there, it is easy enough to string an overhead trolley wire, and have some form of pantagraph or shoe-slider on a pole, the way it was done with the old interurban cars.  Your "battery" or for that matter your IC engine or even external-combustion engine, or your fuel-cell motor, or your nat-gas motor,  can be available in the event you need to make a short detour from the roadway, without wire.  With automatic pantagraph retract and extension, easy enough to do,  you just removed a ton of weight and cost from your "electric" auto, truck or bus.  Developing this type of technology is easy enough to do. 

Would this ever happen?  Not likely.  The technology has headed off into one direction, self-contained battery packs, mostly due to a vast investment of CAPEX in the on-board battery concept.  Had that Chinese investment not been made, it is likely that all sorts of other inventions would be out there puttering around, including both Stirling engines and steam cars.  Even, possibly, flywheel-powered buses.  They do not get developed as there is nobody doing the venture capital into those directions - all because one player  (the Chinese) decided to go the battery route. 

this is why I call it the "rust principle."  What is holding that boat together is the accumulated rust. The boat just keeps sailing along, with no real steel in that hull - it is all rust.  As long as you have that rust, you will keep on sailing. 

This is why new technologies need to have assistance to break into a market ie renewable energies, it keeps an economy healthy to subsidise for a limited time.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

*casual whistle*

[Rodent + 1,424]

6 hours ago, DA? said:

The way people feel and reality are normally two very different things. Just look at the normal trips taken by people, it isn't very far.

Rodent rant follows:

I don't know. I'm sure there are numbers out there on the average trip for a US citizen. I, for one, drive a minimum of 120 miles per day, and an average of 175 miles per day.... And I work from home. My husband drives a minimum of 50 miles per day, and an average of 80 miles per day. And one of us uses our 8-passenger, gas guzzling suburban (which we affectionately call Burby). 

Around here that is normal. It's not like I do substantially more running than other people in my area. And it's not like most people in my area don't drive four-wheel drive trucks or utility vehicles.

Anecdotally I do not see what you see. 

That is the reality here. 

We also have the cold to contend with and the snow and the ice. We start our vehicles 10 minutes before we are supposed to leave--not very climate friendly, but an absolute necessity. My 1/4 mile long driveway is impassible without a four-wheel drive vehicle in the muddy spring and frozen winter--that counts for nearly eight months out of the year. 

Those living in more urban areas will have a different reality. But there are a whole lot of people that do not live in those circumstances, nor will they ever. The EV market is and will forever be incomplete until those issues are addressed. They very well may be addressed in the future, but they are not there today. 

Dear EV makers-- check back in with me when you have a real vehicle that can match my Burby. in order for me to buy what you have, you must have what I want. 

This is where I think Tesla has fallen short and where the other automakers who are headquartered in Auto Country in the Midwest will seize an opportunity. Tesla is operating in a whole different universe (and one might also say that musk is operating in a different universe). The universe of California. Tesla will find a market. But that market is not my market and it's not most people's markets around here. 

 

 

 

[shadowkin + 584]

22 hours ago, Red said:

Given that energy densities are a drawback to EVs compared to hydrogen

This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting hydrogen as a topic because hydrogen (fuel cells) have higher energy density than lithium ion or solid state batteries. It’s true hydrogen fuel cells have higher energy density but…

If you knew what you where talking about you wouldn’t suggest hydrogen as a topic instead of solid state batteries. If solid state batteries aren’t even close then hydrogen isn’t even in the picture. You literally don’t know what you don’t know. Not surprising coming from you but it’s entertaining.

My best guess is that in about a decade solid state will be commercially viable in mass market ev cars. I think they are where Li-ion was a decade ago. There are several multi-billion dollar corporations with armies of engineers and scientists behind them betting hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that this is the case.  But yes, one industry ‘consultant’ knows better. There are problems but nothing apparently that is insurmountable.

Hydrogen fuel cells, on the other hand, require several generational leaps in technologies to ever be considered commercially viable for mass market ev cars. They may have a place in niche markets. Their main drawbacks are cost, inefficiency, and pollution from making them. Best case scenario I would guess is a generation, that’s being generous.

It’s all beside the point of this thread. The commercial success of solid state batteries isn’t required for mass adoption of ev cars.

Edited January 11, 2019 by shadowkin

[shadowkin + 584]

On 1/9/2019 at 3:07 PM, Rodent said:

oh, I think unless I misunderstood the distinction is that more than 50% in Norway doesn't equal most people (in the world). 

This was my understanding as well. It's probably lost on non-native speakers of English.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

15 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Interesting principle and I think certainly pertinent. But, Jan, how durable is rust? This would open up a fascinating branch of discussion. When the rust breaks down, what happens to Volkswagen, basically.

I developed the concept of the "rust principle" from a news report of a US Navy ship, a WWII Destroyer, being moved from a port in Washington State, probably Bellingham, down to the navy dockyards in either San Diego or Long Beach, I am not that familiar with the area.  In any event, it was a routine repositioning journey.  The Captain put his men at work doing what sailors do:  go chip rust.  So the sailors are down in the bowels of the ship with their rust chipper and they chip right through the hull and all this seawater comes pouring in.  The sailors grab some mattresses and some shoring timbers and bang everything together with beams and big nails and they manage to keep that boat from sinking. So the ship radios ahead and the Navy gets a drydock cleared, the boat sails in, and is immediately dry-docked. 

Upon pumping out the water and the ship now sitting on blocks, the inspection team goes and looks at that old hull.  To their surprise they are unable to find any "good steel."  Then entire bottom is nothing but rust. So the Navy has to go re-plate the entire bottom, stem to stern. 

Now the business version of the Rust Principle is that the only thing keeping some business enterprise together is the "old rust" that has accumulated over the decades, or even centuries.  Take a look at the management of General Electric, where the stock has sunk from $33/share all the way to eight bucks, and will probably go to penny-stock terrain.  Or, take a look at the Northfield Savings Bank up in Vermont, which has been in business for 150 years.  The lending limit for a Branch  Manager at that big bank is $5,000.   Now, why on earth do you hire a Manager and keep him hogtied as if he were a five-year-old?   What do you think is holding that bank together?  It is not the inspired management, that's for sure; it is the accumulated rust. 

Enjoy the Rust Principle.  Rust is around you is everywhere. 

[DA? + 301]

6 hours ago, Rodent said:

Rodent rant follows:

I don't know. I'm sure there are numbers out there on the average trip for a US citizen. I, for one, drive a minimum of 120 miles per day, and an average of 175 miles per day.... And I work from home. My husband drives a minimum of 50 miles per day, and an average of 80 miles per day. And one of us uses our 8-passenger, gas guzzling suburban (which we affectionately call Burby). 

Around here that is normal. It's not like I do substantially more running than other people in my area. And it's not like most people in my area don't drive four-wheel drive trucks or utility vehicles.

Anecdotally I do not see what you see. 

That is the reality here. 

We also have the cold to contend with and the snow and the ice. We start our vehicles 10 minutes before we are supposed to leave--not very climate friendly, but an absolute necessity. My 1/4 mile long driveway is impassible without a four-wheel drive vehicle in the muddy spring and frozen winter--that counts for nearly eight months out of the year. 

Those living in more urban areas will have a different reality. But there are a whole lot of people that do not live in those circumstances, nor will they ever. The EV market is and will forever be incomplete until those issues are addressed. They very well may be addressed in the future, but they are not there today. 

Dear EV makers-- check back in with me when you have a real vehicle that can match my Burby. in order for me to buy what you have, you must have what I want. 

This is where I think Tesla has fallen short and where the other automakers who are headquartered in Auto Country in the Midwest will seize an opportunity. Tesla is operating in a whole different universe (and one might also say that musk is operating in a different universe). The universe of California. Tesla will find a market. But that market is not my market and it's not most people's markets around here. 

 

 

 

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Commute/Distance

No you are very much not the average person when it comes to driving habits. For most people there is an EV with a range that will be able to deal with needs. Although it's still early days in the development of this tech. Yes there aren't any fully EV's yet on the market but give it a couple of years. Tesla's can be warmed up nicely without even having to go out and turn them on. Wait till the all wheel drive EV's come in they will show how old the tech of ICE vehicle's are. The Rivian should be out within two years that has true all wheel drive you can even have some wheels pulling forward and others back. Towing will be only be five tons and will be a bit slow on the acceleration at I think three and a half seconds to reach 60mph.

It's an urban world these days that's where over half of the worlds population lives. EV's have been directed to the most profitable markets to start with which is mainly luxury vehicles. They will make a vehicle in the not to distant future, but technologies don't happen over night.

Tesla is a very new company with a limited amount of cash, they have found away of creating a market for their cars to finance the development of the tech. They will have other models out over time to expand into other markets. The "universe of California" has been a great place to start, a state that if it were a country it would have the fifth biggest GDP in the world with people ready to accept change. If you live out in the sticks don't expect companies like Tesla to come to you first.

 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, DA? said:

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Commute/Distance

No you are very much not the average person when it comes to driving habits. For most people there is an EV with a range that will be able to deal with needs. Although it's still early days in the development of this tech. Yes there aren't any fully EV's yet on the market but give it a couple of years. Tesla's can be warmed up nicely without even having to go out and turn them on. Wait till the all wheel drive EV's come in they will show how old the tech of ICE vehicle's are. The Rivian should be out within two years that has true all wheel drive you can even have some wheels pulling forward and others back. Towing will be only be five tons and will be a bit slow on the acceleration at I think three and a half seconds to reach 60mph.

It's an urban world these days that's where over half of the worlds population lives. EV's have been directed to the most profitable markets to start with which is mainly luxury vehicles. They will make a vehicle in the not to distant future, but technologies don't happen over night.

Tesla is a very new company with a limited amount of cash, they have found away of creating a market for their cars to finance the development of the tech. They will have other models out over time to expand into other markets. The "universe of California" has been a great place to start, a state that if it were a country it would have the fifth biggest GDP in the world with people ready to accept change. If you live out in the sticks don't expect companies like Tesla to come to you first.

 

 

Spoken like a true Al bot.  Congratulations on the top-notch algorithms.  This Al stuff is really getting quite sophisticated. 

[DA? + 301]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Spoken like a true Al bot.  Congratulations on the top-notch algorithms.  This Al stuff is really getting quite sophisticated. 

Thank you my CPU has been undated. And I also had a hand and face attached so I can face palm when ever someone continues on about me being a bot.

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, shadowkin said:

copied below with my comments in red

This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting hydrogen as a topic because hydrogen (fuel cells) have higher energy density than lithium ion or solid state batteries. Not at all - that's an unreasonable inference. It’s true hydrogen fuel cells have higher energy density but…

If you knew what you where talking about you wouldn’t suggest hydrogen as a topic instead of solid state batteries. Is that because there is a reason.... If solid state batteries aren’t even close  to what? then hydrogen isn’t even in the picture. No logic to that - hydrogen cars are already running, and it's proven technology. You literally don’t know what you don’t know. You have drawn a conclusion from a series of non sequiturs.  Not surprising coming from you but it’s entertaining.  

My best guess is that in about a decade solid state will be commercially viable in mass market ev cars.  At what cost?  I think they are where Li-ion was a decade ago. Li-ion batteries have been commercially available foe well over 25 years - how's your math?  There are several multi-billion dollar corporations with armies of engineers and scientists behind them betting hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that this is the case.  Let's wish them well  But yes, one industry ‘consultant’ knows better. There are problems but nothing apparently that is insurmountable.

Hydrogen fuel cells, on the other hand, require several generational leaps in technologies to ever be considered commercially viable for mass market ev cars.  The cars run in either hydrogen or electricity - why are you combining them?  They may have a place in niche markets.  They would be excellent for long haul.  Their main drawbacks are cost, inefficiency, and pollution from making them.  No, the drawback is the multiple steps to produce hydrogen, which place hydrogen at a major disadvantage based on fungible energy. The other massive drawback is that the refuelling infrastructure for hydrogen is significantly more expensive and cumbersome than for evs.  Best case scenario I would guess is a generation, that’s being generous.  

It’s all beside the point of this thread. The commercial success of solid state batteries isn’t required for mass adoption of ev cars.  Given that the original linked-article was about  evs being "cheaper, safer and capable of traveling 500 miles on a single charge" you are correct.  Hydrogen cars would be able to easily travel twice as far without the need to refuel.  However, it's actually unsafe for drivers to be at the wheel for more than a few hours without a break, so I don't find it compelling to need to produce an ev with such a long range.

All the major vehicle manufacturers are moving to mass produce evs, and whichever battery technology wins out will simply be a bonus to consumers.  

 

[shadowkin + 584]

22 hours ago, Red said:

Not at all - that's an unreasonable inference.

It’s the most favorable inference for you otherwise it makes no sense in the English language.

22 hours ago, Red said:

No logic to that - hydrogen cars are already running, and it's proven technology.

No one’s arguing some hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been produced except you - with yourself. The whole context of the article and my posts are mass market ev cars. How many mass market hydrogen fuel cell cars are there? Exactly.

Proven? In what sense?

22 hours ago, Red said:

At what cost?

Commercially viable implies cheap enough.

22 hours ago, Red said:

My best guess is that in about a decade solid state will be commercially viable in mass market ev cars.  At what cost?  I think they are where Li-ion was a decade ago. Li-ion batteries have been commercially available foe well over 25 years - how's your math? 

Again the context of the article and my posts is mass market ev cars as is apparent if you can read and understand English. I literally spelled out mass market ev cars in the sentence previous to this. You miss the point completely. English fail.

No mass market ev cars with li ion batteries existed a decade ago. Ten years later they do. No mass market ev cars with solid state exist today. My guess is in 10 years they will. In this sense I say solid state is today where li ion was 10 years ago.

How's your English reading comprehension?

22 hours ago, Red said:

Let's wish them well

You concede my point

22 hours ago, Red said:

Hydrogen fuel cells, on the other hand, require several generational leaps in technologies to ever be considered commercially viable for mass market ev cars.  The cars run in either hydrogen or electricity - why are you combining them?  They may have a place in niche markets.

What? Here is where your ESL and ignorance fails you, again. I’m not combining them. No one literate in English would draw this conclusion from my sentence. The several technologies that I’m talking about are solely related to hydrogen fuel cells. You don’t know what you don’t know.

How’s your English comprehension?

Regardless of this you are wrong. The fuel cells in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles convert hydrogen to electricity to run the vehicle so hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use both hydrogen and electricity. No electricity, no go.

How’s your engineering/scientific knowledge?

22 hours ago, Red said:

Hydrogen fuel cells, on the other hand, require several generational leaps in technologies to ever be considered commercially viable for mass market ev cars.  The cars run in either hydrogen or electricity - why are you combining them?  They may have a place in niche markets.  They would be excellent for long haul.  Their main drawbacks are cost, inefficiency, and pollution from making them.  No, the drawback is the multiple steps to produce hydrogen, which place hydrogen at a major disadvantage based on fungible energy. The other massive drawback is that the refuelling infrastructure for hydrogen is significantly more expensive and cumbersome than for evs.

I said hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells is a system. Production/transportation/storage of hydrogen is expensive. Production of fuel cells is expensive. I am talking of both that together form a system, hence the phrase hydrogen fuel cells. You concede I’m talking about hydrogen fuel cells (“They would be excellent for long haul”). You contradict yourself and concede my point about cost at the same time (“No…more expensive” lol make up your mind or increase your reading comprehension of English).

Whether well-to-wheel or tank-to-wheel, efficiency of making/transporting/storing hydrogen and efficiency of the fuel cell conversion of hydrogen to electricity is a drawback. Pollution from producing hydrogen is a drawback. These also have costs. Your ignorance doesn’t change the laws of physics.

I should point out that the context of all my posts is fully electric li ion cars which don’t actually have a tank. Neither does the the hydrogen come from a well (although the source to make it may). But well-to-wheel or tank-to-wheel are legacy phrases that are still used in the context of these technologies as reference for comparison purposes.

I thought it was necessary to point these things out because otherwise you would respond to them as though you made some masterful rebuttal. That and you’re a tedious person.

How’s your (English) comprehension? How’s your engineering/scientific knowledge?

22 hours ago, Red said:

you are correct

I know.

My posts are based on relevant education and experience while you’re grabbing stuff off the internet and regurgitating it here and still it’s wrong. Remember this knowledge I’ve blessed you with in 10 years time. If you’re an investor you may even profit from it.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by shadowkin

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, shadowkin said:

My posts are based on relevant education and experience while you’re grabbing stuff off the internet and regurgitating it here and still it’s wrong. Remember this knowledge I’ve blessed you with in 10 years time. If you’re an investor you may even profit from it.

You justify what you say by creating unique senses.  You also appear to have no grasp of logic.

 

[shadowkin + 584]

21 hours ago, Red said:

You justify what you say by creating unique senses.  You also appear to have no grasp of logic.

 

thought so

Edited January 13, 2019 by shadowkin

[Red + 252]

On 1/13/2019 at 3:14 AM, shadowkin said:

The whole context of the article and my posts are mass market ev cars

The article was about now EV batteries needed to be cheaper and match the range of conventional ICE vehicles.  Hydrogen powered vehicles can substantially increase the range, but are certainly not cheaper atm.  I also pointed out that I didn't regard the present limitation of BEVs to be so problematic, as driver fatigue after a few hours suggests pulling over - and therefore recharging the car - would be a good idea.

On 1/13/2019 at 3:14 AM, shadowkin said:

No mass market ev cars with li ion batteries existed a decade ago. Ten years later they do.

No dispute from me, but if solid-state batteries had so much promise, why weren't they being developed as a viable alternative to Li-ion way back in 1990s?  

On 1/13/2019 at 3:14 AM, shadowkin said:

The fuel cells in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles convert hydrogen to electricity to run the vehicle so hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use both hydrogen and electricity. No electricity, no go.

No hydrogen, no go.

On 1/13/2019 at 3:14 AM, shadowkin said:

 I said hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells is a system.

Yes, but this system does not rebadge the vehicle an EV.  

[shadowkin + 584]

4 hours ago, Red said:

The article was about now EV batteries needed to be cheaper and match the range of conventional ICE vehicles

Why though? For fun? For a science experiment? No, so they can replace ICE vehicles and you can only do that by being a mass market ev car. Article headline, “Before the Electric Car Takes Over, Someone Needs to Reinvent the Battery.”

 

4 hours ago, Red said:

Hydrogen powered vehicles can substantially increase the range

This isn’t the case anymore. Take the Toyota Mirai, the only hydrogen fuel cell vehicle of note in the US. Less range than Tesla Model 3 LR, EPA rated 312 vs 334 miles, but with less performance and it’s more expensive. It caused Mercedes to drop development of any sort mass market hydrogen fuel cell car.

 

4 hours ago, Red said:

No dispute from me, but if solid-state batteries had so much promise, why weren't they being developed as a viable alternative to Li-ion way back in 1990s?

Usual reasons. Technology and cost weren't there yet.

 

4 hours ago, Red said:

No hydrogen, no go.

Who claimed otherwise? That quote of mine explicitly states hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen. I simply corrected your statement that the cars ‘run in either hydrogen or electricity’ when a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle requires both. If I really want to be a jerk I could point out that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don’t ‘run’ in hydrogen. They run on electricity. Hydrogen is required so that the fuel cell can convert it to electricity which powers the car. It’s not a gas vehicle running on hydrogen instead of gas. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an ev.

 

4 hours ago, Red said:

Yes, but this system does not rebadge the vehicle an EV.  

Who claimed otherwise? As I said it’s a system and you have to consider the costs of both but fuel cells are part of a hydrogen fuel cell car. Fuel cells are expensive, the single largest expense of these cars. As you acknowledged hydrogen fuel cell (not even considering the associated costs with hydrogen) vehicles are more expensive atm. Don’t know what your point is here.

If you're trying to say hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not ev's this is incorrect as I explained above.

Edited January 14, 2019 by shadowkin

[Red + 252]

57 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

copied below - responses in red

Why though? For fun? For a science experiment? No, so they can replace ICE vehicles and you can only do that by being a mass market ev car. All major manufacturers have already committed to EV mass production on existing battery platforms.   Nothing suggests that manufacturers will change their plans.  A cheaper battery is welcomed, but not essential.   Article headline, “Before the Electric Car Takes Over, Someone Needs to Reinvent the Battery.”  

This isn’t the case anymore. Take the Toyota Mirai, the only hydrogen fuel cell vehicle of note in the US. Less range than Tesla Model 3 LR, EPA rated 312 vs 334 miles, but with less performance and it’s more expensive. It caused Mercedes to drop development of any sort mass market hydrogen fuel cell car.  Hyundai have already addressed that concern.   In any case, as Tesla have proven, luxury vehicles have a strong market and niche products can survive despite cost.  The drawback tor hydrogen is that you can't expect to refill just anywhere, whereas a chap recently drove a EV across Africa and topped up wherever a power point was available.

Usual reasons. Technology and cost weren't there yet.  I do not buy that - this has been a multi-billion industry for a long time and a fractional investment way back would have been a pittance to throw at what is being proposed here as a good thing.

Who claimed otherwise? That quote of mine explicitly states hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen. I simply corrected your statement that the cars ‘run in either hydrogen or electricity’ when a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle requires both. The initial energy source is hydrogen, just as the EV energy source is "electricity". If I really want to be a jerk I could point out that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don’t ‘run’ in hydrogen.  you need to improve your logic.  They run on electricity. Hydrogen is required so that the fuel cell can convert it to electricity which powers the car. It’s not a gas vehicle running on hydrogen instead of gas. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an ev.  No, it's always called an FCEV.  The accepted industry terminology for different types of  EVs is here - note that FCEVs are not even mentioned.

Who claimed otherwise?  YOU have - see my previous link.  As I said it’s a system and you have to consider the costs of both but fuel cells are part of a hydrogen fuel cell car. Fuel cells are expensive, the single largest expense of these cars. As you acknowledged hydrogen fuel cell (not even considering the associated costs with hydrogen) vehicles are more expensive atm. Don’t know what your point is here.

If you're trying to say hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not ev's this is incorrect as I explained above.  I will never confuse an EV with FCEV.

I personally like a hydrogen option, and so does Hyundai.  But I cannot see it winning out because too much energy  is lost before a wheel is turned.  It's unlikey to be cost competitive with BEVs in the present market, or a near future market.  However, if range were to be the driving force, then FCEVs immediately solve the problem by adding a bigger fuel tank.    BEVs are being proposed for truck fleets, but I am wondering if again range and cost might make hydrogen cheaper in the longer term - I do not know, but would have found an article on this type of scenario more useful than the nothingness that was originally linked.

By the way, energy density is such a big plus that hydrogen trains are now being rolled out to reduce city air pollution.  The commercial advantage here is that higher upfront costs are mitigated by lesser operating costs.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

On 1/9/2019 at 9:00 PM, Auson said:

Is that 50% of sales or 50% of all vehicles ? Whats the percentage of EVs to ICE in Norway ?

Close to 50% of the new cars sold in Norway in 2018 were plug-in vehicles and among them 31% were all electric (the others were hybrids).

 

According to the Norwegian Road Traffic Information, out of the 147,929 new passenger cars registered in 2018, 31.2 percent were all-electric vehicles. If we are adding all plug-in vehicles, it increases to 49.1 percent of the market.

That’s for the entire year, but some months were even higher. In October, we reported that 45% of new cars were all-electric and 60% were plug-in in Norway.

 

The sucess of EV's in Norway is due to a combination of carrots (subsidies) and sticks (very high gasoline price).

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

On 1/10/2019 at 1:36 PM, Jan van Eck said:

What you are getting into with these ideas of solid-state batteries is  what I term  "the rust principle" of business.  The community (in this case, of EV builders) will continue to use batteries, in whatever form, simply because that is what the rest of the players are using.  And because the other players use them, it becomes a self-fulfilling dynamic, where the continuing use justifies further use, and development cash is pushed into that one specific technology.

But when you think about it, that is all rather silly.  Those batteries are bulky, they are heavy, their carriage requires sturdy suspensions, and they tend to cost a lot of money.  All kinds of other solutions are out there.  And there are likely solutions that we have not even thought of.  For example: 

Suppose that roads are built with specific lanes, enforced by having two strips of concrete and the auto or bus has to stay within those strips or else be running on grass.  To understand this, I invite you to contemplate this German-built dedicated roadway  (only buses currently allowed):

 

Once you have created this type of roadway, which is easy enough to do  (and costs a lot less than a conventional paved road, and also can be cast in sections in a factory under controlled conditions, then taken to the field and dropped on the ground), the traffic is effectively obliged to run within a narrow set of parallel tracks.  From there, it is easy enough to string an overhead trolley wire, and have some form of pantagraph or shoe-slider on a pole, the way it was done with the old interurban cars.  Your "battery" or for that matter your IC engine or even external-combustion engine, or your fuel-cell motor, or your nat-gas motor,  can be available in the event you need to make a short detour from the roadway, without wire.  With automatic pantagraph retract and extension, easy enough to do,  you just removed a ton of weight and cost from your "electric" auto, truck or bus.  Developing this type of technology is easy enough to do. 

Would this ever happen?  Not likely.  The technology has headed off into one direction, self-contained battery packs, mostly due to a vast investment of CAPEX in the on-board battery concept.  Had that Chinese investment not been made, it is likely that all sorts of other inventions would be out there puttering around, including both Stirling engines and steam cars.  Even, possibly, flywheel-powered buses.  They do not get developed as there is nobody doing the venture capital into those directions - all because one player  (the Chinese) decided to go the battery route. 

this is why I call it the "rust principle."  What is holding that boat together is the accumulated rust. The boat just keeps sailing along, with no real steel in that hull - it is all rust.  As long as you have that rust, you will keep on sailing. 

 

Siemens is testing a e-highway system with pantographs for lorries in Germany.

https://www.siemens.com/press/en/feature/2015/mobility/2015-06-ehighway.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMev1FCMQLU

There is also a short test track in California near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

https://www.todaystrucking.com/mack-tests-truck-by-wires-using-ehighway/

 

But there is also an alternative solution being tested in Sweden that is more like a slot car than a trolley, the cars getting the power from below.

https://eroadarlanda.com/

Edited January 14, 2019 by Guillaume Albasini

[shadowkin + 584]

12 hours ago, Red said:

All major manufacturers have already committed to EV mass production on existing battery platforms.

No they haven't. Some have, others issued press releases which change almost monthly.

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

Hyundai have already addressed that concern. 

No they haven't. EPA rates Nexo range at 380 vs 334. Big 46 miles there. And it's performance is inferior. And it costs more. And it's only sold at 2 dealerships in California. Hardly substantial. Future improvements in battery ranges will come as well matching or overtaking this difference.

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

I do not buy that

Doesn't matter what you buy. Your ignorance doesn't change the laws of physics or economics or engineering limitations.

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

The initial energy source is hydrogen, just as the EV energy source is "electricity". 

Lol, nope. Of all your ignorant statements this takes the cake. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy it is not a source of energy. You don't even know what you don't know.

You're again embarrassed that I had to educate you on how a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle works so you had to write something and you managed to make yourself look even more foolish. Your understanding of engineering and science is again exposed.

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

If I really want to be a jerk I could point out that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don’t ‘run’ in hydrogen.  you need to improve your logic.

Huh? In (American) English we don't say cars 'run in' electricity or 'run in' gas. We say cars 'run on' gas or 'run on' electricity. More English reading comprehension fail for you.

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

No, it's always called an FCEV.  The accepted industry terminology

Hyundai Nexo webpage refers to fuel cells or electric vehicles. No FCEV. Always huh? Accepted Industry terminology huh?

 

12 hours ago, Red said:

note that FCEVs are not even mentioned

You introduced 'hydrogen' remember?

 

13 hours ago, Red said:

YOU have - see my previous link.

Nope. It's been explained to you twice in excruciating detail but you still don't get it. Your English gets worse with every post you read.

 

13 hours ago, Red said:

I will never confuse an EV with FCEV.

You're confused by a lot of things. You never even heard of the term FCEV until I embarrassed you causing you to do more internet searches. Still you're FUBAR. I never used the term FCEV because I knew you hadn't heard of it. It was obvious by your suggesting a thread about 'hydrogen' so I tried to explain it in simplest terms to you. Lol.

 

13 hours ago, Red said:

I personally like a hydrogen option, and so does Hyundai.  But I cannot see it winning out because too much energy  is lost before a wheel is turned.  It's unlikey to be cost competitive with BEVs in the present market, or a near future market.  However, if range were to be the driving force, then FCEVs immediately solve the problem by adding a bigger fuel tank.    BEVs are being proposed for truck fleets, but I am wondering if again range and cost might make hydrogen cheaper in the longer term - I do not know, but would have found an article on this type of scenario more useful than the nothingness that was originally linked.

No one read this. No one cares.

 

13 hours ago, Red said:

By the way, energy density is such a big plus that hydrogen trains

Who's talking about trains? You pointed out my mention of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and how they weren't in the original article like you made some great rebuttal and then you introduce trains? Lol. In doing so you unknowingly made one of my points. Niche market. Trains.

[Red + 252]

36 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

No they haven't. Some have, others issued press releases which change almost monthly.

That is false.

Your responses are typical rubbish where you create straw men to prove you were right.

I use the term hydrogen because most people have never heard of FCEVs.  You can repeat as many times as you like that you are right and I do not care.

[shadowkin + 584]

Your panties must have really been in a bunch for you to have down voted my last post that made you look so foolish and uneducated.

 

8 minutes ago, Red said:

That is false.

It's fact. You're ignorance doesn't make it false.

 

8 minutes ago, Red said:

I use the term hydrogen because most people have never heard of FCEVs.

...but you said

 

14 hours ago, Red said:

No, it's always called an FCEV

so plenty of people should have heard of FCEV. Lol.

 

10 minutes ago, Red said:

You can repeat as many times as you like that you are right and I do not care.

I provide evidence of why I'm right. It's you that just tries to declare it. How many times do I have to tell you that we all know you care. I can make you log into this site anytime I wish. I control you.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

29 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Your panties must have really been in a bunch for you to have down voted my last post that made you look so foolish and uneducated.

That is seriously rude.  You are way, way out of line. 

How many times do I have to tell you that we all know you care. I can make you log into this site anytime I wish. I control you. 

Now you are sounding like Russian Bot Al handler.   Knock it off, or be banned from the Community.