Solid state hydrogen technology could replace electric vehicles

Yes, pick a vehicle to suit your needs. I have to pick a large van because of all the tools I own, but at the same time, various jobs can require me to tow a 750kg trailer loaded with materials or a digger etc..

If I pick an EV that can tow, then it's not suitable for the bulk of my work. And it's not financially viable to own two EV's.

So it's all down to individual circumstances etc.. to buy an EV or not, and my circumstances puts me in the not category. Let me put it this way, when it comes a time I need a replacement van, I would be stupid not to buy one that is cheaper to run and similar in convenience to refuel.

And as infrastructure, cost and technology of EV's is not there yet, I have to leave it up to others to purchase them to bring the price down.

I have a feeling they may not drop in price as much as you would like, I cannot see the cost of lithium, nickel etc.. coming down much. I can the price of copper booming. When praising the price of the swings, don't forget the cost of the roundabouts. And as grants evaporate and the tax creeps up to replace the tax lost on diesel and petrol sales, it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

 

sorry it took me so long to respond. out of town for a few days. just got back. now, here we go.

your quote: governor Abbot, other Texas politicians, and pro-oil interests LIED about the causes of the Texas blackout. 1. lied? please show me your proof of that.
2. yes there were also other reasons as my source shows. downed line didn't help. but! when the solar & wind turbines (were frozen solid) and (not) producing power. the coal, & n.g. power stations were still online producing power. they didn't freeze because the generators were in buildings protected from the snow and temps on the out side. with lines down, that was not causing the coal and n.g. generators to stop working. that was the downed lines that kept their power from getting to the customers.
where as the solar & wind gens were down not producing anything.

i'm still having fun. hope you are to.

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/2021/02/...r-woes-not-useful-communications-experts-say/

Natural gas equipment was not adequately winterized and thus failed.

Governor Abbott has admitted that his accusations of clean energy were wrong.

 

again, i ask. where is your proof of your statement: Governor Abbott has admitted that his accusations of clean energy were wrong. i have not found that. would be interested in seeing your source. thanks.

 

from "what went wrong with texas power failure. this quote:


What Happened?
Unprecedented winter storms and frigid temperatures hit across the state beginning on Sunday, causing more than 30 gigawatts of generation capacity to be taken off-line. On the demand side, due to this cold weather, the electric load hit a record of more than 69GW on that night. In response to this combination of historically high demand and unprecedented shortage of power supply, ERCOT initiated “Energy Emergency Alert 3” which ordered transmission companies to begin rotating outages across the state. Meanwhile, skyrocketing demand for natural gas to heat homes in the frigid conditions meant the already stretched supply of gas available for electricity generation was even further compromised.

Why did this happen in Texas, often touted as the energy capital of the country (if not the world)? While final answers await a comprehensive investigation, several key factors may have contributed to this historic power outage.

First, unlike the interconnected regional grids that serve most of the rest of the country, Texas’s ERCOT grid essentially stands on its own. This limits power import and export during extreme situations. When states like Minnesota or California have extreme weather conditions, they can draw upon inter-state power transmission lines to get power from the interconnection. The Texas grid is largely an isolated grid from the eastern and western interconnections that serve the rest of the country.

Second, the massive natural gas and wind generation infrastructure in Texas is not ready for such a winter storm. Many turbines were shut down due to the freezing weather. Equipping these wind turbines with anti-freezing technologies is doable, but will require additional investments.

Third, so called “demand response,” the synchronization mechanism of demand and supply, which is a smart grid technology to extract flexibility at the customer end, is still in a nascent stage here. Other than urging customers to practice voluntary energy conservation, currently there are very few organized technology and business mechanisms to enable load-serving entities to reduce demand at peak periods to manageable levels. This could be automatically done at the customer end by prioritizing essential services such as lighting over non-essential services such as laundry.

when done with this post will give you the link in the next post. as you can read from this post it wasn't the n.g. generators freezing up. it was the demand for n.g. by companies and home owners that bought up the majority of the gas. the power company didn't have the gas to power the generators. that is bad planning. it was the solar & wind generating that didn't work. in that weather. now i'll get the link for you.

 

link: What Went Wrong With Texas' Power Failure And How To Fix It - Texas A&M Today (tamu.edu) this source shows that the n.g. power stations were not frozen, it was the bosses of that power company didn't plan to have enough n.g. bought and paid for, to cover the cold weather. so when they tried to buy more, the demand from companies & home owners was too great for the power plants to get the gas they needed. it was the solar & wind generators that were snow covered or stopped working because of the cold weather.

 

I'm seriously tired of your nonsense.

The governor of Texas retracted what he said. And it doesn't even make sense that he could have been right.

 

@WillReadmore still researching EV's, trying to find people's "real life" data as opposed to manufacturers catalogues. Busy looking at YouTube videos on servicing. Bit of a mixed bag with costs. One thing that was thrown up, insurance. EV's cost more to insure with some paying up to 43% more.

One guy was honest, he said if you can't charge from home, don't buy one yet until technology improves because the whole point in advancement is that you should move forwards, convenience is a step back compared to ICE vehicles. My own sentiments.

I think some are gonna be nervous wrecks from range anxiety.

 

A grocery chain here in the Sacramento area tried natural gas big rigs subsidized by the state. They we’re so slow going up into the mountains, the Highway Patrol threatened to ban them from the freeway.
The chain dumped the idea and scrapped them.
Commercially, lots of route delivery will work like UPS, but now you have two fleets - short range and long.
The only successful EV is Tesla and that is because it’s a Sport/Commuter car in a moderate climate zone.
Range anxiety is huge. In California if your car dies in the wrong place, you are dead.

 

really? i've asked for your source on this. and you have not provided it so far. please show me your source with the gov. retracting his statement. thanks. i could be wrong that is why i'm asking for your source. thanks.

 

No, I used manufacturer data and cited that. I haven't cited any youtubes.

Now, YOU claim EVs cost more to insure, but YOU don't cite anything to support that.

I pointed out this same issue.

If you want to suggest someone wasn't honest, YOU need to be honest about identifying your charges.

 

Sorry, did I say 43%? I meant 45%

https://www.drivingelectric.com/your-questions-answered/53/are-electric-cars-expensive-insure

I never go by ICE or EV manufacturers figures, they're only accurate in a wind tunnel and not in real life.

Edit - which model of EV did you buy

 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/texas-governor-walks-back-fox-052453616.html

 

I haven't posted anything about the cost of insurance in any previous post.

Your own cite does NOT support your contention, by the way. It even points out the EVs can be cheaper to insure. It also uses your figure as a maximum, not representative of what an owner can find on the market.

From your cite:

I think one of the factors here is that EVs tend to cost more, and thus have a higher replacement cost.

I drive a hybrid.

 

Cite please.

 

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.[/QUOTE]
If you want to make a comparison in fuel cost you CAN NOT DO IT like that.

You have to pick similar models. I picked the Ford f-150 pickup, because it is the most popular auto in America and because there is now factory data on the EV version of that vehicle.

Then, you have to figure out the cost per mile of fuel for both versions.

Just pointing at some fuel price change does NOT form an argument.

If you want to comment on comparative fuel price, you have to get real.


What I showed on this thread is that the F-150 EV version will make back the additional purchase price within 25K miles just in fuel cost savings as measured here in California.

I would point out that petrol is WAY more expensive in the UK than it is here. So, until you show your maths, I just do not believe you.

 

Insurance never occured to me until I started looking into the servicing costs of running an EV. I'm always skeptical of claims, there's always a full picture. So the pro EV'ers claim they're cheaper to refuel and service, and that's it, you must be foolish not to get one.

But the cheapness is wiped out from the extra cost of buying one, and as such things as more expensive insurance and tyres.

So it's all down to the priorities of the individual to buy one or not. My number one priority is cost (to purchase and maintain a vehicle), an EV is a no no. Convenience is second priority, an EV is a no no. Third is safety, an EV is a no no.

 

My friend has a friend who has an i3, he said it was £34,000 and £17,000 was the cost of the battery. Because of the battery cost, the rest of the car was quite basic, my friend was actually expecting to see decent stuff.

https://enrg.io/how-much-does-a-bmw-i3-battery-replacement-cost/

We always get ripped off in the UK over pricing. BMW Head of Environmental Engineering states $16,000 and the BMW dealership told the guy that bought the i3 that £17k of the car is battery.

 

The only way I can cost it out is to cost it out for my circumstances. My Movano does 28.6 mpg. The cost of diesel is what I pay at the local forecourt. Now, if I went into the Vauxhall dealership, I would have the choice of buying a new ICE Movano or the Electric version, the difference being £34,000. All I can do for charging cost is go by the kWh for a home electric meter. After 245,000 miles, both vans would then be equal, and from then on, charging the EV will be cheaper over it's ICE counterpart.

And as I cannot charge from home, my figures give the EV an advantage on charge cost.

I don't ask you to believe or not to believe me, it's my current circumstances, the prices that surrounds me and the type of van I need. I need to carry **** loads of tools (hence the poor mpg) and have the ability to tow a trailer when needed.

And people say, "Don't worry, the price of the EV will come down".

Ok, so question -

Will the Vauxhall Movano come down £34,000 in 8 years? (Crystal ball required and they need to upgrade the van so it can tow).

 

BMW i3 battery may be expensive because I think you can change out knackered cells. I believe on cars such as Tesla's, you have to change the entire battery.

Just like an ICE vehicle, some parts you don't expect to replace or repair, but, life never works out like that.

 

Duplicate post deleted, internet hung up

 

One insurance company charges more if you park an EV in your garage, cheaper if left on your drive. Apparently, fire risk.

 

- Your own cite on insurance cost points out the fallacy of your insurance cost claim.

- The analysis I showed for the Ford F-150 indicates that the difference in price between the EV version and the gas version is made up by the cheaper fuel costs alone within the first 25,000 miles. After that, the savings is all to you.

- You bring up "safety" without bothering to even indicate what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that EVs perform worse in crash tests than do similar gas based cars? If so, cite it.

I agree that the convenience factor of home charging isn't available to those who live in apartments where there is no access to electricity from the available parking. While that will change, it is a factor in a purchase decision today - as is the higher initial cost of the new technology.

 

Interesting. Please show your numbers.

What you show here is a result of significant calculation, and I'm really interested in how this works out in UK, given the cost of electricity and petrol and the comparison in mileage performance of equivalent vehicles.

I don't know actual cost of petrol or electricity in UK. There are a number of different petrol powered Movano vans and they get substantially different mileage. So, knowing the specifics of the comparison is significant.

Beyond that, it could well be that it's too early to by an EV version of a van. I'm here to insist on legitimate comparison, not to sell EVs.

 

That is NOT a legitimate comparison. I'm positive you can find expensive insurance if you look for it. And, with EVs being "new" technology to some extent, I would expect one could find an insurance company that adds that newness as a risk factor.

Batelle is an analysis company that carries out safety investigations for the NHTSA, the automobile safety organization of the US government.

They say:
“The main conclusion from that study: the propensity and severity of fires and explosions from the accidental ignition of flammable electrolytic solvents used in Li-ion battery systems are anticipated to be somewhat comparable to or perhaps slightly less than those for gasoline or diesel vehicular fuels."