DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
GRA said:
21 Kwh NiMH battery?
Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread
- Thread starter TomT
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
21 Kwh NiMH battery?
AndyH
Well-known member
Not kWh, just kW. One reference said the SUV uses the 'same' hybrid synergy drive, while another said it had about 30 mile's range at slow speed from the battery.DaveinOlyWA said:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
AndyH said:
that would be a misprint im sure. makes no sense to designate a battery by something other than capacity or voltage
Nubo
Well-known member
AndyH said:
Sure. Petroleum will continue to be necessary feedstock to numerous uses, from materials to fertilizers, to pharmaceuticals. That's why it's even more absurd to burn it for transportation.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
+1Nubo said:
Particularly when there are renewable transportation options available that are less costly.
AndyH
Well-known member
Another reason to install local hydrolysis units - especially in time for the 2015 FCHV roll-out - seems that 10AM till 4PM might be a good time to convert some electrons to H2:
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_29_renewables_bird_problem
Paper with examples of power import/export, demand response, and other possible ways to 'flatten the duck':
http://www.clean-coalition.org/site...bles-Integration_Power-19_ssw-21-Oct-2013.pdf
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_29_renewables_bird_problem
Paper with examples of power import/export, demand response, and other possible ways to 'flatten the duck':
http://www.clean-coalition.org/site...bles-Integration_Power-19_ssw-21-Oct-2013.pdf
AndyH
Well-known member
Stumbled on this - nice overview of the market from the inside as of 30 Sep 2012. Provides a view of the German TIR buildout as well as the work in the US.
The audio is clean and clear, but the captions appear to work well. (Except when they don't. "Nuclear generation" became "new killer". :lol: )
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxidO4F8an4[/youtube]
http://www.hydrogenics.com/about-th...th-a-commitment-of-up-to-us$20-million-a-year
A point from the talk. Transcription errors mine...
edit...typos
The audio is clean and clear, but the captions appear to work well. (Except when they don't. "Nuclear generation" became "new killer". :lol: )
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxidO4F8an4[/youtube]
http://www.hydrogenics.com/about-th...th-a-commitment-of-up-to-us$20-million-a-year
A point from the talk. Transcription errors mine...
edit...typos
GRA
Well-known member
AFAIK, batteries in FCEVs are usually rated in power terms (kW) rather than energy (kWh), because they're used for extra acceleration and to have someplace to dump energy from regenerative braking, rather than to provide main propulsive energy (which the fuel cell, also rated by its electric power output, takes care of). In the case of a FCHEV like this one, the battery can also be used as the main source of energy for a limited range, apparently about 30 miles, similar to the Outlander PHEV.drees said:
The use of NIMH is also not surprising, for a few reasons. Toyota is familiar with them, but more importantly, IIRR NiMH is a power battery more than an energy battery, and is probably better suited to intermittent operation. It's also more durable than currently available Li-ion batteries.
BTW, I found a more technical version of the California Fuel Cell Partnership Roadmap, which goes into matters like hydrogen costing per kg., wholesale and retail, using nat. gas reforming at various production scales in more detail. To be conservative on cost projections the roadmap assumes trailer delivery to dispensing sites, the least efficient and most costly method. I updated the link in my earlier post, or this will take you directly to it:
http://cafcp.org/sites/files/A%20California%20Road%20Map%20June%202012%20%28CaFCP%20technical%20version%29_1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Still just 28 pages.
smkettner
Well-known member
More scare mongering over solar IMO.AndyH said:Another reason to install local hydrolysis units - especially in time for the 2015 FCHV roll-out - seems that 10AM till 4PM might be a good time to convert some electrons to H2:
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_29_renewables_bird_problem
Paper with examples of power import/export, demand response, and other possible ways to 'flatten the duck':
http://www.clean-coalition.org/site...bles-Integration_Power-19_ssw-21-Oct-2013.pdf
The drop from 2014 to 2015 is too big to take seriously.
Besides the best way to mitigate solar would be to charge (and pay) rates based on actual peak TOU.
The current 10a to 6p for SCE just seems wrong. s/b 2p to 7p or 8p. But don't tell SCE.
Once midday becomes off peak or super off peak then just adjust rates accordingly. But I don't think that is happening any time soon and certainly not in 2015 as shown.
GRA
Well-known member
Don't remember if this paper has previously been linked, but it's a DoE comparison of BEVs and FCEVs dating from 2009, comparing energy and power densities. The FCEV wins for long range, as it's both lighter and requires a smaller volume for storage than the BEV. This is at an energy density of about 200Wh/L for the Li-ion batteries. Improved batteries narrow the gap, but batteries still have a ways to go:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
GRA said:
Well, since that guy is clearly "selling" hydrogen, let's see how this comment looks based on what we know today:
"An EV with an advanced LiIon battery could in principle achieve 250 to 300 miles range, but these batteries would take up 400 to 600 liters of space (equivalent to a 100 to 160 gallon gasoline tank!). The fuel cell plus hydrogen storage tanks would take up less than half this space, and, if the DOE hydrogen storage goals are achieved, then the hydrogen tanks would occupy only 100 liters (26 gallons) volume for 300 miles range."
TonyWilliams said:
yeah, thats a great work of fiction, Tesla has a frunk, a cabin for 5, and a boot that fits 2 kids
the shorter range Honda Fuel cell vehicle, its got a cabin for 4, and a boot
next thing is that they would imagine that H2 fuel cell efficiency is comparable to Battery EV!
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
ydnas7 said:
Here's some more:
"All electric battery powered electric vehicles will probably find niche applications as city cars and limited range commuter cars. A major breakthrough in battery technology, well beyond the US ABC battery goals, would be required before a battery EV could satisfy customer’s needs for conventional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery recharging times. Most drivers would not accept more than 15 to 20 minutes charging time on long distance travel for EVs, while FCEVs can be refueled in the 5 to 10 minutes expected by consumers."
AndyH
Well-known member
It's not scare mongering! That's important - it's one of the lessons learned in Germany. Again - if you haven't looked over the Third Industrial Revolution talk, or read info about what's been happening in Germany for the past 5 years (you know, the stuff a certain political groups throw to 'prove' solar won't work - like negative pricing or grid instability) than this won't make sense.smkettner said:
I've pointed it out already in this thread, and have posted links and info in other threads, but this is exactly what Californian's can expect as more renewables are put on the grid if we don't add storage. It's what Rifkin's talked about from Europe, and it's what Lovins and RMI have talked about in Reinventing Fire.
The 'duck' chart was prepared not by Koch-funded anti-renewables forces or Arizona regulators fighting rooftop solar, but by independent groups working to transform our grid and learning from the experiences of the groups on the planet that are ahead of us.
edit...not completely accurate. The chart itself was created by CAISO.
smkettner
Well-known member
I don't buy it one iota. I can't get how that much solar gets installed in one year.
We would need to add in 2015 as much solar as all previous installed combined. Are there really that many commercial sites getting completed because no way home solar will jump that fast. Yes I agree storage would be huge to carry that power into the early evening.
I have never seen that dip in demand into the 4pm hour yet it says it already exists in average demand.
I plan to revisit this in March to see how far off that prediction really is.
Why not show October so we can also look at the real curve.
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand
Must be a different graph because it dips well below the current overnight minimum in the middle of the day.
We would need to add in 2015 as much solar as all previous installed combined. Are there really that many commercial sites getting completed because no way home solar will jump that fast. Yes I agree storage would be huge to carry that power into the early evening.
I have never seen that dip in demand into the 4pm hour yet it says it already exists in average demand.
I plan to revisit this in March to see how far off that prediction really is.
Why not show October so we can also look at the real curve.
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand
Must be a different graph because it dips well below the current overnight minimum in the middle of the day.
AndyH
Well-known member
http://www.clean-coalition.org/site...bles-Integration_Power-19_ssw-21-Oct-2013.pdf
Germany's seen this, as have other areas of the EU.
From here:http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790
Germany's seen this, as have other areas of the EU.
From here:http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
Andy; showing us over capacity potential means nothing unless you can show that hydrogen has made improvements in containment, transportation and storage. THAT is the holy grail. it is that which puts hydrogen in the same ballpark as gasoline and its prime advantage over electricity.
until you can show us that, I prefer molten salt, pumped water, etc. as a way to store over capacity. neither is a great option (although molten salt does seem to have enough merit to warrant futher investment into the tech) now neither of these options are portable. they only store power onsite which greatly limits its usability.
when we can create the hydrogen by hydrolysis, pipe it 300 miles to major refueling station to put into big trucks and do it without losing half of it in the process, then we got something. so are we at that point?
keep in mind; the piping system must be robust enough to last long enough to justify its initial costs.
must be cheap enough to be able to calculate a reasonable rate of return and by reasonable; I think 25-30% is reasonable considering the massive health and ecological benefits involved.
but we dont have any of that. not one single point. current containment still leaks. it is VERY expensive and uses materials that is currently in a worldwide shortage which means any significant additional demand will cause an already expensive item to sky rocket.
keep in mind; hydrogen is a great idea towards a partial solution to our transportaion needs and it will have to work in concert with plain old battery EVs so with that mind; if any of the above had been solved, seems to me that would have made just as much news as a 200 mile battery pack weighing 300 lbs would have
until you can show us that, I prefer molten salt, pumped water, etc. as a way to store over capacity. neither is a great option (although molten salt does seem to have enough merit to warrant futher investment into the tech) now neither of these options are portable. they only store power onsite which greatly limits its usability.
when we can create the hydrogen by hydrolysis, pipe it 300 miles to major refueling station to put into big trucks and do it without losing half of it in the process, then we got something. so are we at that point?
keep in mind; the piping system must be robust enough to last long enough to justify its initial costs.
must be cheap enough to be able to calculate a reasonable rate of return and by reasonable; I think 25-30% is reasonable considering the massive health and ecological benefits involved.
but we dont have any of that. not one single point. current containment still leaks. it is VERY expensive and uses materials that is currently in a worldwide shortage which means any significant additional demand will cause an already expensive item to sky rocket.
keep in mind; hydrogen is a great idea towards a partial solution to our transportaion needs and it will have to work in concert with plain old battery EVs so with that mind; if any of the above had been solved, seems to me that would have made just as much news as a 200 mile battery pack weighing 300 lbs would have
Nubo
Well-known member
smkettner said:
My take is that the curve doesn't represent total demand, but the portion of demand not being met by solar/wind.
palmermd
Well-known member
+1 daveinoly
Similar threads
