RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I don't think we KNOW that: we HOPE that Gen 2 will cross the chasm to general acceptance,...
What we DO know is that Gen 2 WILL meet the needs of the vast majority of commuters at equal or lower lifetime costs when compared to ICEVs, depending on the relative price of gasoline and electricity, which certainly varies greatly by location.
They may well do so, but if consumers don't see any advantage (plenty of BEV enthusiasts were making exactly the same point about 70 mile BEVs), they won't buy them.
RegGuheert said:
Personally, I will change from recommending BEVs to almost no one who asks me to recommending them to nearly everyone who asks.
I'll certainly be more willing to recommend them as well, for those who can benefit. Unfortunately, the one friend of mine who's in the best situation for one (owns a home with grid-connected PV on the roof) has similar needs to mine, i.e. needs a single car with long winter range at high speeds. An FCEV currently provides that, and at a lower cost than a BEV which lacks the range. Neither BEV or FCEV infrastructure will currently allow him to get where he needs to go (he's a winter backcountry ranger/hutmaster in Yosemite, with the trailhead about 185 miles and 7,300 feet higher than he lives), and he also does a lot of long distance mountain driving the rest of the year. If Tesla gets around to building the SC in Groveland one of them could work, albeit the Model 3/Model S60 is too lacking in range to be as practical for him as an FCEV; destination charging at the trailhead (a downhill ski area) would help his winter 'commute', but not his other trips.
It would take a single H2 station located in Manteca (120 miles to trailhead) or preferably east of it, in Oakdale, Groveland or Crane Flat inside the park, to make an FCEV work for him for his winter commute (plus one locally). I'm keeping an eye on developments for him, especially with Volvo, as he's owned Volvo wagons for the 36 years I've known him. His current V70's good for a long while yet, and in any case the only AFV I would recommend for him right now would be a PHEV, so that he could go to all the remote locations lacking electricity which he currently does, including out of state ones. I consider the XC90 T8 to have too little AER for the price, and bigger than he needs. Volvo's got other PHEVs in the pipeline, but like me he'd probably prefer to go all sustainable fuel/zero emission in one go instead of incrementally.
The GLC F-cell PHEV, if the infrastructure is there, could probably meet his needs (as would the Tucson), but like me he doesn't lease cars but buys them and keeps them until they die, and with the unknown of future H2 prices as well as the inability to travel outside of California at the moment, that's not something I'd recommend for him now. In a few years, we'll see if FCEVs/BEVs can meet his (or my) needs.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
...but it will be Gen 3 or later BEVs that can equal ICE performance/price, and at the moment there's no guarantee that we can get there technically;...
Why anyone would want to match the many "inferior" aspects of ICEVs is completely beyond me. BEVs are already SO far superior to ICEVs in so many aspects I cannot understand the desire to go back to that approach.
Who says anyone wants to match the _inferior_ aspects of ICEs, it's the _superior_ ones (the ones that people value) that BEVs need to match, to wit, constant range throughout the car's life, with free use of climate control without needing to flight plan, price, longevity, refueling time. The latter can be traded off against range, to some extent, and price against longevity ditto. We all agree that EVs are superior as far as smoothness, vibration and (usually) noise as well as being more efficient, and for those with a dedicated parking spot with electrical service at home, more convenient.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
...it will almost certainly take something beyond Li-ion to get the necessary energy densities and longevity.
Li-ion is here for the long-haul. The improvement rate between Gen 1 and Gen 2 is about 10%/year for specific energy and about 15%/year for range. The rate of improvement may slow somewhat, but it will NOT drop to zero. That's not how things work. There are a lot of good ideas out there which have yet to make it to market.
Unfortunately, Li-ion's max. theoretical gravimetric energy density aka specific energy is around 400 Wh/kg varying slightly by chemistry, with practically achievable specific energies naturally less (the blog poster Tony linked to says 300-350Wh/kg is the practical maximum, which agrees with other sources I've read), and there's a similar limit on theoretical volumetric energy density (Wh/L; forget the number, but in the same range), so there's a hard cap on future Li-ion development. It will take Li-Si, Li-S, Li-air or some other breakthrough battery tech to get where batteries need to be, and at the moment they all have issues. We can hope they get solved, but as with fuel cells/H2 there's no guarantees.
