Solid state hydrogen technology could replace electric vehicles

No pressurized hydrogen tanks. Lighter weight than batteries. Considered a disruptive technology so was banned until 2017.

I find this fascinating and nothing expected.

 

No it wasn't.

 

Brilliant statement! Proof?

 

LOL! Never studied logic eh. What a shock.

It is impossible to show evidence for a negative. Where is YOUR proof it was banned, and why? The burden of proof is on you.

And because it's you I know it's BS without even fact checking.

 

Nature has already thought of it!

In photosynthesis light shines on water molecules releasing hydrogen which flows through atp-synthetase creating ATP

 

.

How about a catchy name for the new hydrogen vehicles... Hindenburgs

 

i found this on another site, it has to do with electric vehicals. what do you think, right or wrong. just asking.


My brother has legitimate questions.



David Freiburger

Are electric cars really better for the environment? I’m talking about the entirety of the sweeping change that’s coming. Clearly an individual EV emits fewer hydrocarbons than a gasoline or diesel vehicle, and I’ve read articles on that subject—but have never seen a larger analysis of the wholesale changes that must be made to accommodate an EV society. Here are the subjects I’d like to see addressed:
- The biggie: the mining and manufacturing to create EV batteries
- The impact of the eventual disposal of those batteries
- The manufacturing and disposal of all the charging equipment, which will certainly change as often as mobile phone products
- The environmental impact of upgrading any electrical grids that cannot at present handle the increased demand
- What’s the environmental impact of the manufacturing and installation of new power generating stations that presumably will be required as the demand for electricity goes up, and to eliminate the currently environment-negative power stations?
- Globally, how much more coal be burned to increase electrical capacity?
- As solar panels increase in popularity, what’s the impact of increased manufacturing and disposal?
- As the government continues to mandate reduction of gasoline and demand goes down, we must consider the environmental impact of disposing of many gas stations, and then of the construction of new buildings that will occupy the real estate.
- Government mandates against ICE vehicles and gasoline will drive up gasoline prices and increase demand for EVs, therefore causing early retirement of ICE vehicles, increasing the emissions related to the higher-than-natural volume of those cars being disposed.
- The demand for parts from ICE vehicles will be reduced, leading to less reuse of parts out of salvage yards, leading to more recycling. Recycling is not net-neutral environmentally.
- What’s the environmental impact of the manufacturing and discharge of whatever new chemicals need to be created to extinguish EV fires?
We also have to accept that gasoline and diesel will not be entirely eliminated, so the refineries are not going to all of a sudden return to a natural state. Therefore, the environmental impact of all the electric-car infrastructure is cumulative, not a complete replacement of the gasoline infrastructure.
This seems like the ultimate NIMBY delusion to me, but I’m willing to be wrong. Got data? Share links.
(And this does not even address the economic debacle or the massive inconveniences that are coming.)

 

I like that!!

You want to bill EV for having fewer available used ICE parts!! LOL!!!

There will be fewer auto shops, too, because EV has much less need for that kind of work. So, maybe you should try to find a way to bill EV for that savings, too! Maybe you could try to argue that ICE needing constant servicing is something people should be HAPPY about!! You could berate the fact that EV requires far less servicing. People should WANT to take their car to the shop. They should WANT to have to go to a gas station, instead of fueling up at home - for cheaper per mile!!

As to oil, at least 2/3 of our use of oil goes to transportation. Cutting that use means further enhancing our balance of trade, as we would become even more of a net exporter of oil. Obviously, that doesn't come on some specific date - oil use will decrease over time. Plants can age out in accordance with the economic justification for their existence. Capitalisms knows exactly how to do this. And, it will have to do with the world market, not just US consumption.

Solar panels allow for lower energy costs. That's for everybody, not just EV. Once again you try to bill EV for a benefit that targets the energy bills of all Americans, regardless of their transportation choices.

BTW, complaining about environmental impact while PROMOTING OIL is really pretty disgusting.

And, the idea of complaining about removing gas stations on the grounds that the removal is polluting is really just plain LAUGHABLE - as is the ridiculous idea of charging EV for new uses that the gas station land can be put to.

 

As only the engine is different between EV's and ICE vehicles, servicing costs will be similar, if not initially higher for EV's as garages need to invest in equipment to deal with motors and batteries. You will still have all the steering, suspension, panels, lights, glass etc.. maintenance to contend with.

Each year, I change the oil, oil filter, cabin filter and sometimes the diesel filter. Engine wise, that's it. The age of the vehicle means my repair bills are the tyres, suspension, springs etc.. My diesel car is coming up to 20 years old, on the exhaust system, only the rear back box has been replaced, once.

If ICE vehicles need replaced, it'll have to be by something that's as convenient or better; electric doesn't make the grade, well, certainly current technology of EV's don't. Current EV's only satisfy/cater for a selective market.

Currently, I can tow with my van, I can't with a new electric van because I've asked the manufacturers. The difference in price between the diesel and electric van I was looking at is just over £30,000 and the difference I would save in cost buying electric v diesel means I will break even in 245,000 miles.

As for the environment, EV's are supposed to reduce your transport co2 emissions by 25% to 50% (depends on the size of the battery pack), not a lot really, is it?

So at the moment, the EV revolution, count me out.

 

No, EVs are far less costly to maintain The catch is that EVs have very few moving parts. So, there are no oil pumps, no cooling pumps, no fan belts, no pistons, no valves, no gears, no catalytic converters or other exhaust system parts, no starter motor or engagement system, etc. There are no oil filters, air filters for the engine, fuel filters.

As to equipment required for servicing, there is no need for tuning and timing an EV. The systems for which an oil based car requires special servicing equipment just don't exist on EVs.

EV's are definitely cheaper to maintain. You do self service and have had good luck, but that is not a representation of the maintenance required for an oil based car.

Yes, I agree that there are uses that are not currently answered by EVs.

Most people do not tow trailers. If you want a trailer hitch on a car, that is usually an addition.

No, that is a huge amount. If you're interested in reducing co2 emissions by humans, I don't know of anything larger. 2/3 of our total oil consumption goes to transportation. This is a huge opportunity for fossil fuel use reduction.

EVs will come down in price as initial investment is paid off, competition is added, and customer awareness is improved, resulting in higher volume. Also, battery technology is constantly improving.

Today, hybrid cars are starting to use large scale capacitors to more effectively capture brake and coasting energy, since capacitors are incredibly fast and low overhead to charge. It's starting to look like EVs of the future could be depending much more on capacitors, making charging time and efficiency improve by a major factor.

 

you make very good points.---but----you leave out something.-----will the buying public ---buy electric or any other power source for cars. yes there will be fewer parts on electric vehicals to fail. but they will ---cost----far more than anyone thinks to replace. i just heard that half of all "mustangs" sold were electric. but! never said what that number was. how many mustangs were sold in total? they don't say. you think fire depts, want electric pumpers or ladder trucks? i think not. if they lose power on a fire call, (what do they do?) what about long hall trucks? stuck out in the middle of nowhere!! you do know cold weather really effects batterie life right?
you say quote: Solar panels allow for lower energy costs but you leave out the thousands of dollars it cost to install, buy, the panels, you must take into account that cost to weigh agains your savings. plus, no sun, or snowcovered, panels don't work very well if at all. just a few things to think about.

 

I'd point out that your opinion on this is counter to the opinion of those who make gasoline cars. They ALL believe you are wrong.

Do you know the reasons for that? If not, you should figure that out. If you do, then what the heck are you saying above?

And, your crap about long haul trucks is just plain ridiculous. Nobody is requiring anyone to switch every type of vehicle to electric - at least until it makes sense.

Solar is a separate issue. Today there are companies that will install solar on your home for FREE, if you will share the lower cost of electricity with them. Of course, your roof has to be appropriate for solar - if you live in the woods or have huge overhanging trees, that won't give enough of a return. But, this offer exists in northern latitudes. I know of at least one site in CT, for example.

 

what am i saying? ok, lets see my quote: will the buying public ---buy electric or any other power source for cars. i think i am quite clear on that.

your quote: I'd point out that your opinion on this is counter to the opinion of those who make gasoline cars. They ALL believe you are wrong. ok, like the "edsel?" or the "chevy volt?" many companies are sinking tons of money into electric cars, but, i've not seen any (real) demand for electric vehicals. have you?

your quote: And, your crap about long haul trucks is just plain ridiculous. really? i've seen cities with n.g. buses and electric vehicals that really didn't work on the streets. forcing them to go back to desiel buses, that have long range. long hall trucks are pulling tons of cargo, along flat roads and very hilly roads. in all kinds of weather, and batteries don't like cold or very cold weather.

your quote: Solar is a separate issue. really? then why did you bring it up in your prevous post? i just answered your quote from it.

your quote: Today there are companies that will install solar on your home for FREE, if you will share the lower cost of electricity with them thank you, you just made my point. now you have to figure in the cost of sharing the savings with that company. so you don't save as much as you thought you would. you see?

your quote: Of course, your roof has to be appropriate for solar - if you live in the woods or have huge overhanging trees, that won't give enough of a return. But, this offer exists in northern latitudes. I know of at least one site in CT, for example thank you, you made my point again. your house has to be just right, & no trees,--and you left out taller buildings from the direction you get your sun lite. or as you said quote: you will not get you enough return. where as with oil, n.g. or electric, you don't have to worry about that stuff. you've got power//heat/a.c. when ever you need it with out solar. thank you.
just to let you know i mean no offence in this discussion, but am having fun in this debate.

 

Sorry buddy, real life reality disagrees. My friend has a Nissan Qashqai, she has to take it to the main dealer for service because independent garages do not have the equipment. It costs over £500 for a two year service package. I take mine to various local garages and the service is always around the £100 mark.

And as the price of EV's come down, the government incentives stop and tax per mile driven kicks in.

I'm not interested in reducing co2 emissions, doesn't appear anywhere on my priority list. If dinosaurs flourished in 2,400ppm co2, in average temperatures 4 to 5 c warmer than today, the climate alarmists warning that we are going to die in a few decades if we don't get to grips with co2 is ridiculous.

Question - why can't earth's co2 be 2,4000ppm, we are currently on 440ppm? Life starts to die off around 150/180ppm.

 

As you service cars, EV owners claim to save hundreds a year. Then after 5 to 8 years,

Garage, 'Well guv, found a dead cell in your battery pack, along with other dead cells"

Proud EV owner, "Oh, how much is a new battery pack"

Garage, "On your BMW i3, it's £17,000"

Proud EV owner blubbing through tears, "Yawhaa, I thought running an EV was cheaper than an ICE. I could have bought a few recon engines for that. Ah well, as long as I saved the planet from this imagery global pending disaster", sob sob.

 

Let's do some maths (or math if you're American)

In 2019, the US produced 6,558 million tons of co2. Of this, 29% from transport. Some 90% is from petroleum transport, so this comes from any vehicle, train or ship running on fossil fuels. I think the EU said 84% is to do with road transport, so let's use 84%. Ok, we've got that.

Now, depending on the model of EV (battery pack size), an EV will cut co2 emissions over the lifespan of the car anywhere from 25% to 50%. Producing and scrapping an EV is not co2 friendly.

Imagine overnight, the US changed all road vehicles to electric. You will save 25% to 50% of 84% of 29% of 6,558 million tons of co2. So if you take the average between 25% and 50%, the US will reduce their co2 by 15.225%, 998million tons per year. And after a few years of the number of vehicles increasing on the road, America will be back to the 2019 figures.

If anyone believes they're saving a planet by switching to an EV, the polite term is called, "Living the dream'.

 

sorry, but i have never heard of a "qashqai". not saying anything bad about it. just never heard of it. so can't comment on it.

your quote: And as the price of EV's come down, the government incentives stop and tax per mile driven kicks in. ok, 1. your (assuming) the price on ev's will come down. i've seen no evidence on that so far. 2. now you use (government incentives?) so your saying the buying public aren't interested enough to buy ev's without the government stepping in to convince them to buy a ev? that doesn't show much interest in ev's without government taxpayer help. imo that is not a good sign.

your quote: I'm not interested in reducing co2 emissions, doesn't appear anywhere on my priority list. If dinosaurs flourished in 2,400ppm co2, in average temperatures 4 to 5 c warmer than today, the climate alarmists warning that we are going to die in a few decades if we don't get to grips with co2 is ridiculous. this has been the (gloom & doom) talk from the climate change people since the late 60's/early 70's. nyc, miami both flooded by 2,000, didn't happen. famine by 1975 then 2019! didn't happen. no more oil, didn't happen, ice age by 2020. didn't happen. droughts in 1980's-didn't happen. ozone gone by 2020-didn't happen. ice caps gone-didn't happen. i could go on and on with the (gloom & doom) from these people. but it is up to you what you believe, so will not try to change your mind. but i look at the world & people differently i think than you. your choice. realy enjoying this, thanks.

 

Remember that I pointed out that the auto manufacturers see you as being WRONG.

And, they are proving that with their investment in the future.

Nobody on this board has presented the idea that we won't have EVs until EVs can power long haul trucks.

Let's try to be serious, OK?

The point being made is that EVs use fuel that is cheaper on a per mile basis. And, with the advent of solar, that will only get cheaper for those who can install solar power.

This doesn't make sense. You can sign a contract with the company. They install for free. Then, YOU get cheaper electricity and they get cheaper electricity, too - making it worth their time and yours.

Yes. It doesn't work for every building in the USA.

However, a large percentage of buildings CAN take advantage of solar.

And, remember that EVs do NOT depend on you having solar.

EVs are cheaper per mile without the additional advantage of solar. Plus you can fuel up at home.

 

Can I do some maths on the cheapness. My current diesel van costs 17p per mile to fuel up, the equivalent EV van is 5p per mile, so that's a saving of 12p per mile. Cheap isn't it? But, if I bought my van new, I need £32,000 and if I bought the Electric version, £55,000. So, to buy a van that's cheap to recharge, I need to spend £33,000 extra. So if I divide the £33,000 by 12p, after 275,000 miles, I start to save money. Now don't get me wrong, America is a big place and a van owner over there would probably achieve that, but in the UK, it's taken 7 years to get the van to do 75,000 miles, the UK is a much smaller place. And then at what point will the batteries need replaced? Another cost to factor in.

As for charging, one third of motorists cannot charge from home, so you would have to factor in going to charge points that cost 2, 3 and even some 4 times as much as home electric.

As for solar power, an appraisal on my roof, the orientation of the house to the sun, house location and when it's occupied for electric consumption, the data came back that over the lifetime of the panels, it would cost me £1,805. So say the panels lasted me 10 years, rather than buying 10 years of electric off the grid in those 10 years, having the panels means it cost me 11 to 11 1/2 years to get 10 years of electric.

And I would have to lash an extension lead out of my upstairs apartment and across the road to charge an EV. And as it's an apartment, I'd imagine the owner downstairs would like half the roof space or half the electric.

So when I read a statement like yours, it doesn't match the reality of millions of people.

 

Well, vans are not the first target, and the cost of new technology is not the measure of where we're going with this.

Another point YOU could make is that there isn't a substantial used EV market at this point, because there simply haven't been enough EVs sold to allow that to happen.

Auto manufacturers know all this very well, and yet are going electric.

So today it's going to be cheaper in the short term to buy gas cars. But, the advantages EVs have will pay off for those who own their cars for a while, even at today's high prices for EVs. Plus, EVs have features that gas cars simply don't have. No trips to gas stations except for long trips. Quiet. Clean in the garage. Zero emissions. Faster acceleration. Plus some others.

This may appeal more to those with money right now, but auto manufacturers are not, in fact can not, ignore vehicle price.
[/QUOTE]

As for charging, one third of motorists cannot charge from home, so you would have to factor in going to charge points that cost 2, 3 and even some 4 times as much as home electric.
[/QUOTE]
Apartments are going to need to move to supporting charging electric cars. Plus, places of work, shopping centers, etc., are installing charging. I'm sure you can search out places where charging is expensive today, but there is no chance that is going to last.

I have no idea exactly what you are paying for.

As I've pointed out, here in the US there are companies that will install solar FOR FREE if you sign a contract with them to share in the LOWER cost of electricity.

In other words, it's an immediate benefit to the customer without the customer laying out any up front cost.

As above, I agree that apartments are going to have to change to provide charging capability, or their apartments are not going to be as attractive.

And, yes, the apartment building owner is undoubtedly not going to surrender the building roof to your solar project.

If some other apartment provided energy for less money, you may well choose to move.

As with ALL vehicles, it is not one size fits all. People do watch the cost of fuel, the cost and frequency of maintenance, and other factors in choosing the vehicle that is best for them.

Oil based vehicles are not going to just go away. But, every auto manufacturer believes in EVs enough to make a gigantic investment, and even promise that their car lines are going to be for EVs.

 

It's good and bad depending on where you live. It's not world ending like the alarmists are trying to push it

 

Would you rather sit there and replace several disks to 'gas up' or just plug in and pick your nose while you wait?

I think they need to focus on a charging system and making the disk last longer than a 100 charges. That's more important than making it smaller.

Alternatively you have one heavy disk and an automatic machine that swaps it out and charges them at the station.

 

ok, your quote: Remember that I pointed out that the auto manufacturers see you as being WRONG. right, just like they thought the edsel, and the chevy volt were on track also. both failed. just because car companies think something is right doesn't make it right.

your quote: And, they are proving that with their investment in the future. just like they did with the edsel, and chevy volt. they dumped money into failure.
your quote: Nobody on this board has presented the idea that we won't have EVs until EVs can power long haul trucks. right. but you made it sound as if e.v's are the future, that means long hall trucks, buses, and heavy haulers should be wanting the e.v.'s which i see no demand for.
your quote: The point being made is that EVs use fuel that is cheaper on a per mile basis. really? did you take into account the cost of improving the electric grid, & the amount of energy to produce the electricity to recharge the e.v.'s batteries? i think charging stations will cost plenty, and the cost of using them with make the recharge very expencive for the owners. imv.
your quote: And, with the advent of solar, that will only get cheaper for those who can install solar power. yeah, solor & wind worked very well last winter in texas, didn't it? snow covered the solar panels, and the turbines were frozen to a stop. i see no way green energy wind or solar getting cheaper in the long run.

your quote: This doesn't make sense. You can sign a contract with the company. They install for free. Then, YOU get cheaper electricity and they get cheaper electricity, too - making it worth their time and yours. you left out the part you still have to pay for the panels, (and) give 1/2 of your savings to the company that installed them for you. so that doesn't make the install--(free)! (and) you never mentioned just how long you have to give 1/2 of your savings to that company. that doesn't sound like a good deal for anyone. do you think it does?



your quote: And, remember that EVs do NOT depend on you having solar. true, but they depend on a power grid, that now mainly runs on n.g. or coal, and the cost of building the grid like some climate people want will be a heck of alot of money which we have seen doesn't work well like in texas last year.

looking forward to your reply. don't know about you. but i realy enjoy this. thanks.

 

Well, every auto maker did not believe in the Edsel or Volt.

In the case of EV, everyone from Chevy and Ford to Porsche and Audi see EVs as their own future.

And, that may not include Peterbilt or Scania.

Public transit such as light rail has been using electricity for a long time.

The reason long haul trucking isn't on the cutting edge of EVs is not because electricity isn't strong enough.

And, the fact that there will continue to be applications for oil based vehicles does NOT say anything about the passenger car industry.

For homeowners, it means plugging in your car at night.

For those who commute to businesses, EVs can be plugged in their, if the employees show serious interest.

The reasons for the failure in Texas had to do with the electric grid - not solar or wind. Yes, I know political toadies to oil in Texas tried to blame wind power, but that was a pack of lies - well known at this point.

And, yes. Our grid is not in good shape today. So, it has to be fixed regardless of EVs or other increased use of electrical power.

NO. The panels are supplied as part of the deal. In fact, they usually continue to be the property of the company that installs for free and shares the cost savings with you.

These companies will share the savings with you as long as you are interested.

As per above, our power grid has to be upgraded REGARDLESS of solar or EVs.

In fact, roof top solar HELPS the grid! After all, if you are getting electricity from your own roof, you aren't putting as much load on the grid!!

 

As for charging, one third of motorists cannot charge from home, so you would have to factor in going to charge points that cost 2, 3 and even some 4 times as much as home electric.
[/QUOTE]
Apartments are going to need to move to supporting charging electric cars. Plus, places of work, shopping centers, etc., are installing charging. I'm sure you can search out places where charging is expensive today, but there is no chance that is going to last.

I have no idea exactly what you are paying for.

As I've pointed out, here in the US there are companies that will install solar FOR FREE if you sign a contract with them to share in the LOWER cost of electricity.

In other words, it's an immediate benefit to the customer without the customer laying out any up front cost.

As above, I agree that apartments are going to have to change to provide charging capability, or their apartments are not going to be as attractive.

And, yes, the apartment building owner is undoubtedly not going to surrender the building roof to your solar project.

If some other apartment provided energy for less money, you may well choose to move.

As with ALL vehicles, it is not one size fits all. People do watch the cost of fuel, the cost and frequency of maintenance, and other factors in choosing the vehicle that is best for them.

Oil based vehicles are not going to just go away. But, every auto manufacturer believes in EVs enough to make a gigantic investment, and even promise that their car lines are going to be for EVs.[/QUOTE]
Suffice to say, manufacturers are only getting into the EV market because as from 2030, the sale of new ICE vehicles will be banned.

As for cost, the purchase price of a new EV is subsidized by the UK government. So that will have to be factored in when those end.

As for charging, I think the majority would like to plug in to their house socket, I mean, who would want to buy a kettle and plug it in to a socket from home and pay a premium to get a cup of tea? The average price per kWh at home is 14p, this article points out that charge point costs -

From 1 December, new prices will apply across the BP Pulse network. The cost per kWh of energy for subscribers has risen from 23p to 32p for the firm's standard public chargers (AC 43kW/DC 50kW) and from 29p to 38p for registered users.

The firm's fastest (150kW) devices will now cost 38p per kWh subscribers, 44p for registered users and 50p for pay-as-you-go users, while the slower 7kW units cost from 28p per kWh.

Meanwhile, Instavolt, which claims to be "the largest owner-operator of rapid DC charging stations in the UK", has announced a price hike from 40p per kWh to 45p – also effective from 1 December

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...arging-firms-raise-prices-energy-crisis-bites

I did read an article and I'm damn annoyed I didn't keep a copy of the link, that if the cost of buying and maintaining an EV exceeded a certain price per month, people can't afford them. And it means most people can't afford one.

But that's all by the by because with current technology, solar is just not feasible for me, current infrastructure, current costs etc.. EV's are simply not viable. This may change in time but I'll be in my sixties come 2030 so it's unlikely I'll get onto the EV bandwagon. No offence to EV supporters, I don't wish to take a step backwards.