| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bones McCracker wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | My ex boss had a loaner Tesla Model X (SUV) while his Model S was in the body shop. The gull wing rear doors are nigh on a work of art.
Regarding the Prius, I routinely got 50+ mpg. Do you not consider that pretty good? What it is not, is a blast to drive, but its been extremely reliable and economical. It recently turned over 300,000 miles.
- John |
Was that a plug-in hybrid or just regenerative charging? |
Just regenerative. In 2005, the Prius wasn't available in a plug-in model.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd buy a Volt if:
1. The damn things were bigger.
2. It didn't dump mountains of snow each year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 131
Location: India
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeremy Clarkson would piss on Volt too, if he knew about it or cared enough about it.
_________________
"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | Bones McCracker wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | My ex boss had a loaner Tesla Model X (SUV) while his Model S was in the body shop. The gull wing rear doors are nigh on a work of art.
Regarding the Prius, I routinely got 50+ mpg. Do you not consider that pretty good? What it is not, is a blast to drive, but its been extremely reliable and economical. It recently turned over 300,000 miles.
- John |
Was that a plug-in hybrid or just regenerative charging? |
Just regenerative. In 2005, the Prius wasn't available in a plug-in model.
- John |
Well, that makes it an honest 50 mpg though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17405
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokey wrote: | | GM had one in '99 |
The EV1 didn't have a viable range.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | The whole concept of lugging huge, heavy batteries is flawed. Carmakers have to throw n resources at regular cars or put them into already big SUVs to hide the fact, and the result is that a regular gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler is environmentally friendlier over the entire course of its life if you factor in the total impact beginning at the production line. We really need the hydrogen car to succeed instead. |
What's more environmentally friendly about a hydrogen fuel cell car (in total impact beginning at the production line)? You still have all those rare earth element magnets in the motor, plus more rare earths in the fuel cell catalyst. You still have a battery, albeit smaller, for instantaneous load (although supercapacitors might replace that one day). You also have the extra conversion losses of producing, compressing, and transporting the hydrogen. Depending on how clean the grid power is, Hydrogen, although inherently clean at the consumption point, might have a significant Carbon footprint. You have the weight of the tankage, or worse, the metal hydride, and the weight of the fuel cell itself. What the Hydrogen fuel cell car has right now is the potential for greater range. Battery technology is improving rapidly, though. Even that potential may disappear.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5441
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | asturm wrote: | | The whole concept of lugging huge, heavy batteries is flawed. Carmakers have to throw n resources at regular cars or put them into already big SUVs to hide the fact, and the result is that a regular gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler is environmentally friendlier over the entire course of its life if you factor in the total impact beginning at the production line. We really need the hydrogen car to succeed instead. |
What's more environmentally friendly about a hydrogen fuel cell car (in total impact beginning at the production line)? You still have all those rare earth element magnets in the motor, plus more rare earths in the fuel cell catalyst. You still have a battery, albeit smaller, for instantaneous load (although supercapacitors might replace that one day). You also have the extra conversion losses of producing, compressing, and transporting the hydrogen. Depending on how clean the grid power is, Hydrogen, although inherently clean at the consumption point, might have a significant Carbon footprint. You have the weight of the tankage, or worse, the metal hydride, and the weight of the fuel cell itself. What the Hydrogen fuel cell car has right now is the potential for greater range. Battery technology is improving rapidly, though. Even that potential may disappear.
- John |
the motor could be induction or SR so no need rare earth magnets
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | GM had one in '99 |
The EV1 didn't have a viable range. |
It was 70-100 miles. The same as the first Teslas
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | asturm wrote: | | The whole concept of lugging huge, heavy batteries is flawed. Carmakers have to throw n resources at regular cars or put them into already big SUVs to hide the fact, and the result is that a regular gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler is environmentally friendlier over the entire course of its life if you factor in the total impact beginning at the production line. We really need the hydrogen car to succeed instead. |
What's more environmentally friendly about a hydrogen fuel cell car (in total impact beginning at the production line)? You still have all those rare earth element magnets in the motor, plus more rare earths in the fuel cell catalyst. You still have a battery, albeit smaller, for instantaneous load (although supercapacitors might replace that one day). You also have the extra conversion losses of producing, compressing, and transporting the hydrogen. Depending on how clean the grid power is, Hydrogen, although inherently clean at the consumption point, might have a significant Carbon footprint. You have the weight of the tankage, or worse, the metal hydride, and the weight of the fuel cell itself. What the Hydrogen fuel cell car has right now is the potential for greater range. Battery technology is improving rapidly, though. Even that potential may disappear.
- John |
You forget, the hydrogen infrastructure is already there, just at the moment it's carrying petrol
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5441
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: |
We'll see. So far they've gone nowhere. Tesla meanwhile is expanding their recharging grid. I'd buy electric before fuel cell. |
umm... fuel-cell cars are electric (>ლ)
I still stand by flow batteries over fuel-cell or LiIon simply because of refueling & crash danger
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5441
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokey wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | | asturm wrote: | | The whole concept of lugging huge, heavy batteries is flawed. Carmakers have to throw n resources at regular cars or put them into already big SUVs to hide the fact, and the result is that a regular gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler is environmentally friendlier over the entire course of its life if you factor in the total impact beginning at the production line. We really need the hydrogen car to succeed instead. |
What's more environmentally friendly about a hydrogen fuel cell car (in total impact beginning at the production line)? You still have all those rare earth element magnets in the motor, plus more rare earths in the fuel cell catalyst. You still have a battery, albeit smaller, for instantaneous load (although supercapacitors might replace that one day). You also have the extra conversion losses of producing, compressing, and transporting the hydrogen. Depending on how clean the grid power is, Hydrogen, although inherently clean at the consumption point, might have a significant Carbon footprint. You have the weight of the tankage, or worse, the metal hydride, and the weight of the fuel cell itself. What the Hydrogen fuel cell car has right now is the potential for greater range. Battery technology is improving rapidly, though. Even that potential may disappear.
- John |
You forget, the hydrogen infrastructure is already there, just at the moment it's carrying petrol |
Fueling points exist at convenient, distributed locations. What doesn't exist is the industrial infrastructure.
Petrol - fueling stations exist
Hydrogen - fueling stations can be re-purposed (LPG) but means to generate hydrogen, store, transport SAFELY is required
Flow-batteries - fueling stations can be re-purposed. Spent dielectric would need to be taken away
All-Electric - fueling stations exist, community grid would need to be upgraded to cater for increase in VA
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Last edited by Naib on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | | asturm wrote: | | The whole concept of lugging huge, heavy batteries is flawed. Carmakers have to throw n resources at regular cars or put them into already big SUVs to hide the fact, and the result is that a regular gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler is environmentally friendlier over the entire course of its life if you factor in the total impact beginning at the production line. We really need the hydrogen car to succeed instead. |
What's more environmentally friendly about a hydrogen fuel cell car (in total impact beginning at the production line)? You still have all those rare earth element magnets in the motor, plus more rare earths in the fuel cell catalyst. You still have a battery, albeit smaller, for instantaneous load (although supercapacitors might replace that one day). You also have the extra conversion losses of producing, compressing, and transporting the hydrogen. Depending on how clean the grid power is, Hydrogen, although inherently clean at the consumption point, might have a significant Carbon footprint. You have the weight of the tankage, or worse, the metal hydride, and the weight of the fuel cell itself. What the Hydrogen fuel cell car has right now is the potential for greater range. Battery technology is improving rapidly, though. Even that potential may disappear.
- John |
You forget, the hydrogen infrastructure is already there, just at the moment it's carrying petrol |
Fueling points exist at convenient, distributed locations. What doesn't exist is the industrial infrastructure.
Petrol - fueling stations exist
Hydrogen - fueling stations can be re-purposed (LPG) but means to generate hydrogen, store, transport SAFELY is required
Fuel-Cell - fueling stations can be re-purposed. Spent dielectric would need to be taken away
All-Electric - fueling stations exist, community grid would need to be upgraded to cater for increase in VA |
Creating the hydrogen isn't there but the means of transporting it from factory to depot to stations and keeping it at those locations is virtually there. There is also the metal that would be saved from oil rigs and super tankers that could be recycled to build industrial infrastructure - the new hydrogen electrolysis stations - which I think use sea water which may help the rising levels of the sea.
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | the motor could be induction or SR so no need rare earth magnets |
In practice I don't think that's true at the power to weight ratios needed for automobiles, but even if it were true, it's orthogonal to the battery electric vs. fuel cell discussion: such a motor could be used in either.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5441
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree it is "orthogonal" to part of the discussion on energy source (that's not the only talking point in this thread...) but just to be clear... Telsa uses induction machines ( https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors )
There is a time and a place for PMAC machines and a fully electric doen't nesseserily point that way.
HYBRIDS use BLAC
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Last edited by Naib on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zixnub
n00b
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Brasschaat, Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bones McCracker wrote: | | Mardok45 wrote: | | Bones McCracker wrote: | The real solution is a Matrix. Just put people in little cubbies and let them travel and interact in virtual reality. No reason to actually move people and goods about. "Let your fingers do the walking."
In fact, no need for cubbies really. All that's really called for is a chip in each person's head! |
So, the internet basically? |
Exactly. The Internet. But with a chip inside everybody's head. |
How's that different than browsing OTW?
_________________
https://github.com/udevbe/greenfield
https://github.com/udevbe/westfield |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokey wrote: | | Creating the hydrogen isn't there but the means of transporting it from factory to depot to stations and keeping it at those locations is virtually there. There is also the metal that would be saved from oil rigs and super tankers that could be recycled to build industrial infrastructure - the new hydrogen electrolysis stations - which I think use sea water which may help the rising levels of the sea. |
The infrastructure for transporting and storing high pressure gaseous hydrogen (or liquid hydrogen) is not really at all similar to the petroleum distribution infrastructure, so it's far from virtually there. Also, today most hydrogen is made by cracking petrochemicals, but even if it all came from electrolysis, and the electric grid was totally cleaned up to not use hydrocarbons for the requisite electricity generation, any water removed from the sea would go back when the hydrogen was "burned" in the fuel cell.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | I agree it is "orthogonal" to part of the discussion on energy source (that's not the only talking point in this thread...) but just to be clear... Telsa uses induction machines ( https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors )
There is a time and a place for PMAC machines and a fully electric doen't nesseserily point that way.
HYBRIDS use BLAC |
Ah. Thank you. Nevertheless, all I was arguing with that point was that fuel cells aren't what makes the manufacturing process cleaner, nor in the near term the operation of the vehicle cleaner, when compared to a pure battery electric vehicle. They're probably dirtier in the near term, in fact.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5441
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree, that is why I chuckle over this craze for electric cars. Dont get me wrong I want them, its job security for me BUT we are not there yet.
As more renewable energy pushes itself onto the grid & if we can get back to nuclear (fission [re. THORIUM!!!] or fusion...) then that's a different thing for the generation of PART of the fuel.
I still don't think fuel-cell are a good idea. Hydrogen is needed & it isn't that efficient to generate
Batteries are poor and have the downside of silly charging time. This is why I keep going on about flow batteries
but that is just the fuel side of things...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | Creating the hydrogen isn't there but the means of transporting it from factory to depot to stations and keeping it at those locations is virtually there. There is also the metal that would be saved from oil rigs and super tankers that could be recycled to build industrial infrastructure - the new hydrogen electrolysis stations - which I think use sea water which may help the rising levels of the sea. |
The infrastructure for transporting and storing high pressure gaseous hydrogen (or liquid hydrogen) is not really at all similar to the petroleum distribution infrastructure, so it's far from virtually there. Also, today most hydrogen is made by cracking petrochemicals, but even if it all came from electrolysis, and the electric grid was totally cleaned up to not use hydrocarbons for the requisite electricity generation, any water removed from the sea would go back when the hydrogen was "burned" in the fuel cell.
- John |
You're being too literal. Of course you can't just turn off the petrol tap and start pumping hydrogen through them. My point is more that there wouldn't need to be compulsulory purchases of huge swathes of land and create a completely different delivery system because for the past century we have been efficient at getting hydrocarbons from the ground to the filling station. Systems would be changed - some more than others - but we have the basis for a new infrastructure by building over the old one
High pressure LPG is in every filling station in the country so the knowledge gained by transporting that could surely be used? Hydrogen is light, it's dense and it's difficult to set alight, what could be better for your local BP?
There is the big bonus that the range is 250 miles and it takes less than 5 mins to charge!  As James May said, "They are the car of tomorrow because they are the car of today"
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe hydrogen fuel cell cars deserves it's own discussion thread
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beware! More literalism to follow.
"High pressure LPG" is a misnomer. Most LPG is a liquid at room temperature at under 320psi, whereas typical on-vehicle storage pressure for hydrogen on a fuel cell vehicle is on the order of 10,000psi. Also, although hydrogen is light, it's neither dense nor hard to set alight. That said, I'm sure that handling it safely is a solvable engineering problem.
Range and quick filling / recharging are important, of course, but I think those are solvable engineering problems for pure battery electric vehicles, too. Once the tipping point on battery density / cost is reached, I believe traditional petrol filling stations will install electric car charging stations. There'll be no need for "huge swaths" of new land. The electricity is already nearby as well.
Edited out a claim I wasn't sure I could support for now.
- John
P.S., if someone can give me a second vote on the split, I'll do it.
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | Beware! More literalism to follow.
"High pressure LPG" is a misnomer. Most LPG is a liquid at room temperature at under 320psi, whereas typical on-vehicle storage pressure for hydrogen on a fuel cell vehicle is on the order of 10,000psi. Also, although hydrogen is light, it's neither dense nor hard to set alight. That said, I'm sure that handling it safely is a solvable engineering problem.
Range and quick filling / recharging are important, of course, but I think those are solvable engineering problems for pure battery electric vehicles, too. Once the tipping point on battery density / cost is reached, I believe traditional petrol filling stations will install electric car charging stations. There'll be no need for "huge swaths" of new land. The electricity is already nearby as well.
Edited out a claim I wasn't sure I could support for now. |
I don't think batteries will ever reach the 3 minute recharging stage. Also liquid hydrogen is very dense and although it is flammable it is less than petrol in the circumstances that it would be used.
| John R. Graham wrote: | | P.S., if someone can give me a second vote on the split, I'll do it. |
I think I'll start a "which is the future" thread where people can vote and discuss that and no split needs to occur.
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17405
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokey wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | GM had one in '99 |
The EV1 didn't have a viable range. |
It was 70-100 miles. The same as the first Teslas |
Which also lacked viable range. It wasn't until the Model S that range became practical.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | cokey wrote: | | GM had one in '99 |
The EV1 didn't have a viable range. |
It was 70-100 miles. The same as the first Teslas |
Which also lacked viable range. It wasn't until the Model S that range became practical. |
The range is still pretty bad tbh, they're not in the 450 mile mark
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10118
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
What first Tesla was that? The roadster, which I believe was the first Tesla, has 230 mile range.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
