[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Stoshu

Solar and Wind are wonderful and clean source of energy but I read an article a couple of months ago that currently, even with a massive effort, solar and wind could only cover 20% of the current need for power in the US and that’s without the increased demand of even a 50% EV population or the need for clean power to make Hydrogen.

Currently nuclear would provide enough clean power but its stigma and waste disposal issues are large hurdles to leap in the United States.

Originally Posted by speedyman

Nuclear is really the only clean option ... I have been told by several electrical engineers

There's so much FUD and misinformation in your post it's hard to know where to even start ... ok, here's a start: don't get business advice from electrical engineers!


(1.) Existing US power companies have no problem building to meet new power demand and there are no barriers to doing it. One might consider when air conditioning showed up in the 60s & 70s driving massive new power demand yet the US had no problem expanding capacity.

(2.) To account for EVs, we'd only have to increase capacity ~6%/year even assuming 80% EV adoption by 2030 which ain't gonna happen

(3.) Rather, the existing grid needs to be strengthened to account for storms, systemic failures like in Texas, and national security - EVs and batteries only help this effort*!


Why EVs & EV tech will improve the grid and lower* energy costs:

To account for peak electricity demand, power companies typically build "peaker plants" - Peakers cost ~$700,000,000 to build and sit idle unless they're needed, not to mention have expensive maintenance & labor. Battery peakers cost 10% of that, ~$70M, can be used daily, and have ultra low maintenance & labor costs.

Battery Peakers have been tested in Australia and are an unqualified success and are expanding to California as well as to residences in Australia as "virtual power plants".

This is all shy of vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G) and V2x tech (already in pilot) that enables groups of EVs to be used for energy storage themselves. Since most vehicles sit idle 95% of the time, and because EVs have huge batteries, groups of them can be combined into a variable storage resource for power companies - this will likely start at SuperCharger stations, but can easily extend to home chargers and PowerWalls ... in this way it could soon be possible for automakers to subsidize your EV price with power company contracts just cell phones are subsidized by cell carriers.

That is, if you buy an EV & Powerwall, the power company will pay you to store electricity in your batteries ... and if you generate your own solar, then you could sell that extra power as well. There are already average homes in Sunbelt states with $0 power & fuel costs. As for people, homes, and communities that can't afford their own infrastructure, there are community solar & battery microgrid startups in the 100s ... and it's not even that profitable ... yet!

SIDE NOTE: One of the largest funders of solar, and the guy who owns one of the largest solar generating plants in America is ... Warren Buffett! Berkshire Hathaway Energy is going big on solar because just one corner of any sunbelt state could power the entire US. If solar didn't have a bright future (see what I did there! ), Buffett wouldn't be near it.

And beyond that, this is all good news for US private & national security - microgrids are way cheaper and ensure less disruption during storm outages, including people who can be self sufficient, i.e., not depend on distant power companies for their power or gas stations for their fuel. And, of course, national security: taking a power station offline won't have much of an effect if most communities are self-sufficient and many home are.

None of the above has anything to do with green-anything, it's just smart home defense, national defense, home economics, and freedom. Personally I like to depend on as few institutions as possible, and I like to do that as cheaply as possible.

-----------

Finally, nuclear ... if we ARE gonna talk green, then, yeah, nuclear is the fastest path to zero emissions and new nuke tech (pebble beds, underground cooling circuits, etc) is both mostly invisible (no big cooling towers) and super efficient while not being dangerous.

To Stoshu's point, if people got over the old-nuke-tech stigma of 3 Mile Island and Fukashima, nuclear is DEFINITELY the smartest, fastest way to go. However with that, you don't see Buffett investing in nukes soooo .... plus Nukes just replace centralized power generation at the expense of microgrids so, IMO, while nukes are the fastest path to zero emissions, they're not the right approach.

But, as above, no, EVs won't outrun capacity and pretty simple calcs prove that out

[speedyman]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

There's so much FUD and misinformation in your post it's hard to know where to even start ... ok, here's a start: don't get business advice from electrical engineers!


(1.) Existing US power companies have no problem building to meet new power demand and there are no barriers to doing it. One might consider when air conditioning showed up in the 60s & 70s driving massive new power demand yet the US had no problem expanding capacity.

(2.) To account for EVs, we'd only have to increase capacity ~6%/year even assuming 80% EV adoption by 2030 which ain't gonna happen

(3.) Rather, the existing grid needs to be strengthened to account for storms, systemic failures like in Texas, and national security - EVs and batteries only help this effort*!


Why EVs & EV tech will improve the grid and lower* energy costs:

To account for peak electricity demand, power companies typically build "peaker plants" - Peakers cost ~$700,000,000 to build and sit idle unless they're needed, not to mention have expensive maintenance & labor. Battery peakers cost 10% of that, ~$70M, can be used daily, and have ultra low maintenance & labor costs.

Battery Peakers have been tested in Australia and are an unqualified success and are expanding to California as well as to residences in Australia as "virtual power plants".

This is all shy of vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G) and V2x tech (already in pilot) that enables groups of EVs to be used for energy storage themselves. Since most vehicles sit idle 95% of the time, and because EVs have huge batteries, groups of them can be combined into a variable storage resource for power companies - this will likely start at SuperCharger stations, but can easily extend to home chargers and PowerWalls ... in this way it could soon be possible for automakers to subsidize your EV price with power company contracts just cell phones are subsidized by cell carriers.

That is, if you buy an EV & Powerwall, the power company will pay you to store electricity in your batteries ... and if you generate your own solar, then you could sell that extra power as well. There are already average homes in Sunbelt states with $0 power & fuel costs. As for people, homes, and communities that can't afford their own infrastructure, there are community solar & battery microgrid startups in the 100s ... and it's not even that profitable ... yet!

SIDE NOTE: One of the largest funders of solar, and the guy who owns one of the largest solar generating plants in America is ... Warren Buffett! Berkshire Hathaway Energy is going big on solar because just one corner of any sunbelt state could power the entire US. If solar didn't have a bright future (see what I did there! ), Buffett wouldn't be near it.

And beyond that, this is all good news for US private & national security - microgrids are way cheaper and ensure less disruption during storm outages, including people who can be self sufficient, i.e., not depend on distant power companies for their power or gas stations for their fuel. And, of course, national security: taking a power station offline won't have much of an effect if most communities are self-sufficient and many home are.

None of the above has anything to do with green-anything, it's just smart home defense, national defense, home economics, and freedom. Personally I like to depend on as few institutions as possible, and I like to do that as cheaply as possible.

-----------

Finally, nuclear ... if we ARE gonna talk green, then, yeah, nuclear is the fastest path to zero emissions and new nuke tech (pebble beds, underground cooling circuits, etc) is both mostly invisible (no big cooling towers) and super efficient while not being dangerous.

To Stoshu's point, if people got over the old-nuke-tech stigma of 3 Mile Island and Fukashima, nuclear is DEFINITELY the smartest, fastest way to go. However with that, you don't see Buffett investing in nukes soooo .... plus Nukes just replace centralized power generation at the expense of microgrids so, IMO, while nukes are the fastest path to zero emissions, they're not the right approach.

But, as above, no, EVs won't outrun capacity and pretty simple calcs prove that out

What ever you say Boss. Nearly fell asleep half way through all that blah, blah, blah.
You sound like the man who knows everything. If you need to be right as it appears that you do then you are absolutely right.

[solomonshv]

Originally Posted by speedyman

"Climate change" indeed. Sounds painfully reminiscent of the impending Ice Age that was rapidly approaching or so the Liberals of the '70s claimed. What ever happened to all of that BS?
Oh well, Green New Deal will save the day and show us the way. India, China, and Co. will surely be on board with all that nonsense.

china is decades ahead of us. they built up an immense rail infrastructure to reduce their reliance on cars. china is also investing heavily in electric cars. china is also the world leader in renewable energy production, by a long shot.

i know you thought you were being funny and clever, but this was an incredible self own as China has been on board for a long time now and speaks volumes about how little you know.

[speedyman]

Originally Posted by solomonshv

china is decades ahead of us. they built up an immense rail infrastructure to reduce their reliance on cars. china is also investing heavily in electric cars. china is also the world leader in renewable energy production, by a long shot.

i know you thought you were being funny and clever, but this was an incredible self own as China has been on board for a long time now and speaks volumes about how little you know.

Yeah no pollution in China, no siree Bob. They could care less about the environment, C02, etc.
You are living in some kind of a dream world or a cave if you think China is not full speed ahead with their industrial monster while having little to no regard for the massive amounts of pollution that come out of that God awful dump. Who doesn't know this?
You probably would tell us that India is another environmentally friendly garden place also.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90375916...no-longer-work

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by speedyman

If you need to be right as it appears that you do then you are absolutely right.

It's not about "right" - there is no right, only what's best right now - it's about following the hard-to-read facts instead of your easy-to-be-lazy emotions.

You can do better, you just need to find the courage & discipline to do it.

Make today your start day!

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Stoshu

Currently nuclear would provide enough clean power but its stigma and waste disposal issues are large hurdles to leap in the United States.

BTW - I mentioned that Buffett is betting big on solar:

Speaking at the Edison Electric Institute’s annual convention in Las Vegas on Monday Buffett said that Berkshire Hathaway has committed $15 billion to renewable energy already. More importantly, Buffett said that he is ready to invest another $15 billion in the sector.

But also related are hedge funds attempt to corner the uranium market:

Anchorage’s wager relies on buying uranium and selling it to utility companies and others at a higher price for delivery several years in the future, in what is known as a carry trade. Doing so could generate annualized returns of roughly 5% for Anchorage, according to people familiar with the matter.

The hedge fund embeds options into sale agreements with utilities and other firms, people familiar with the matter say. This can involve selling fuel to a utility company at a discount in return for the right to deliver more uranium at a set price at a later date.

Anchorage isn’t alone in betting that prices are primed to rebound.

Investment firms including Segra Capital Management LLC, Sachem Cove Partners LLC and Azarias Capital Management LP expect that efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels will require new nuclear-power stations, according to executives at the funds. They are seeking to profit by buying shares of uranium miners or firms like Yellow Cake, which is up 31% in London trading over the past year.

[jad03060]

So far, China has the longest lasting fusion reaction at about 2-minutes. While that isn't much, and still a long ways from anything commercial, it's still a long way from what it was previously. Now, if we can ever figure this out, there's plenty of hydrogen around to make this work.

[KRS_SN]

in the quest for saving the planet the solution is nuclear so that there is a chance we could wipe ourselves out. Couldn't make it up.

[biterror]

Originally Posted by solomonshv

china is decades ahead of us. they built up an immense rail infrastructure to reduce their reliance on cars. china is also investing heavily in electric cars. china is also the world leader in renewable energy production, by a long shot.

They still operate a huge number of coal-fired power plants - and are building new ones faster than any other country.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by speedyman

Nuclear is really the only clean option if the government is going force the EV change over in the near term as I have been told by several electrical engineers working in the electrical power generation/distribution industry. There is not enough power in places like CA now, citizens in that state have to endure rolling blackouts as they do in third world countries. Simply amazing and totally unacceptable, environmentalism gone berserk.
Lets force people to buy EVs that they can't always recharge, makes all the sense in the world out there in CA.

The future is going to be powered by multiple sources. Nuclear isn't going away. Anyway, here is an example of innovation in nuclear energy - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill...ear-power.html

There is a lot of innovation going on in other areas like wind and solar and well. Many companies working on next generation of these. The more diverse the energy sources, the better it is for us.

The problem I have is that the oil and gas companies are creating massive FUD around any alternatives to them and that doesn't make sense. They benefited from decades of preferential treatment, including going to war for them...now that govt. are looking to diversify they are running campaigns to scare people that there won't be planes to fly etc etc. We just have to keep everything in perspective. JMHO.

[speedyman]

Originally Posted by biterror

They still operate a huge number of coal-fired power plants - and are building new ones faster than any other country.

^^^^^^This.
Very well known fact. Anyone who honestly believes that the Chinese Communists give a crap about the environment or the rest of the world for that matter are really out of touch with reality. They will use the cheapest, easiest, energy sources as they devour the worlds manufacturing industries. The WuFlu and their behavior after it infected the world is a very good lesson in what they are about.

[jad03060]

One thing that is making some progress is solar concentrators. A new innovation to solar concentrators has been able to raise the operating temperature from around 500c to 1500c by using some AI. They use a camera to monitor the mirrors to adjust their focus more accurately to concentrate the energy more intensely. They use the heat and store it (different methods, one is phase change salts, another is rocks, etc.) and can tap it throughout the night to even things out during the 24-hour period, so unlike 'normal' solar cell operations, it can still provide energy when the sun is down.

There's more than enough solar energy, if we can tap it efficiently, to power the current needs and for a long time further. It will take some innovative thinking and in some cases, some public stimulus to get them operational.

Building a small test/demonstration fleet of FCV is part of that thinking, IMHO. What is learned from that will be useful, even if it doesn't become mainstream, as there will be applications where it may end up the best solution to a problem. You only learn by trying...not everything works out in the end, but it can bring some new options into view from that knowledge.

Also note, the most efficient solar cells can now produce about twice the power per area as those at the beginning, and we're still learning. Some of the issue is keeping the cost down and doing it with cost-effective materials, but it's rare you get that right the first time.

[GrussGott]

Sooo... back on topic!

BMW's vehicle uses Toyota's fuel cells, i.e., from the Toyota Mirai .... here's what's interesting:

(1.) Technology Progression. The Mirai has ~400 miles of range ... in the 2016 video below this was discussed as a competitive advantage versus BEVs ... but that' no longer true! BEV tech has eclipsed H2 tech in 5 years, while hydrogen is stagnant.

(2.) Consumer Choice. Let's face it, Toyota's hydrogen tech hasn't gone anywhere versus their BEV tech, but even when it had an advantage it didn't connect with consumers like the BEV Prius did. (there are H2 stations in California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island)

(3.) Convenience & Optionality. BEVs are primarily fueled at your home - no runs to the gas/hydro station. This means consumer independence which means options & freedom; no more depending on insanely long supply chains, just make your own fuel. East Coast gas shortage anyone? Storms?


And a hydrogen car is still a BEV! So as a consumer, with hydrogen you lose the ability to be independent and go back to relying on infrastructure for the trade-off of fast refueling (which for BEVs is down to 20 min).

For some people that trade-off might make sense (need on-street parking, etc) but ... why the hell would we build massively expensive H2 stations all the across the US when electricity is already everywhere? The cost to construct a hydrogen fueling station is ~$1-$2 million in the US, even higher in Japan and Europe. Comparatively an EV station is about $200k and, of course, is connected to the existing grid so doesn't require hydrogen deliveries.

And then there's burning hydrogen directly which is worse all around.

[speedyman]

I feel like I just read an issue of Popular Science.

[KRS_SN]

few questions comes to mind.

Degradation of batteries V Degradation of hydrogen fuel cells over time and mileage...this will establish real green credentials and long term ownership decisions.

secondly hydrogen cars like mirai next etc have a shocking 0-60 time. can bmw move it to the 5-6 second range?

will a hydrogen powered x5 be cheaper to buy upfront than a bev x5.

[speedyman]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

few questions comes to mind.

Degradation of batteries V Degradation of hydrogen fuel cells over time and mileage...this will establish real green credentials and long term ownership decisions.

secondly hydrogen cars like mirai next etc have a shocking 0-60 time. can bmw move it to the 5-6 second range?

will a hydrogen powered x5 be cheaper to buy upfront than a bev x5.

What is a "shocking" 0-60 time?

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by speedyman

What is a "shocking" 0-60 time?

Depending on the trim it looks like 7.4 to 9 seconds. I would base nothing on that though. Toyota obviously choose to use slower electric motors. You could likely get it into the 3-4 second range if they choose motors like Tesla uses.

[jad03060]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Depending on the trim it looks like 7.4 to 9 seconds. I would base nothing on that though. Toyota obviously choose to use slower electric motors. You could likely get it into the 3-4 second range if they choose motors like Tesla uses.

The typical fuel cell is sized for average loads, and relies on the (often) small batteries to provide short-term peak power. 'All' you need to get faster acceleration is a bigger battery and maybe electric motor...both are fairly easy to implement. How BMW chose to do that, we'll know more in a bit. Depending on the motor, you may only need a bigger power supply (battery) to get more power out of it, even when your 'normal' power (the FC) is too small to produce the acceleration you may desire.

Fuel cells have various applications, and getting more field experience is beneficial, regardless. Who knows, maybe someone will develop a small home hydrogen generator...the water and power are already there in most cases. A kilo or two a week would keep most vehicles running without having to stop somewhere and refill there. Doable.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

few questions comes to mind.
Degradation of batteries V Degradation of hydrogen fuel cells
a shocking 0-60 time. can bmw move it to the 5-6 second range?
will a hydrogen powered x5 be cheaper to buy upfront than a bev x5.

Ignoring the "green" aspect (because off topic & IMO that's not the core reason for EVs / PHEVs / FCEVs), so just focusing on the tech:

(1.) Li Battery vs FC degradation.
Tesla's data of existing batteries show < 10% degradation after 160,000 miles and there are vehicles out there with 400,000+ miles on them



HFC degradation is hard to pin down - it happens in multiple ways (fuel-starved anode, PCM cycle stress, etc) and for city driving at least one study shows a 23% efficiency loss.

The bottom line is, FCEVs have to worry about BOTH battery & fuel cell degradation, with the latter being largely unknown and former having a ton of data on existing batteries.

(2.) Hydro fuel cells ARE BEVs.
The cell powers the motor AND the battery, so if, say, degradation is a problem with BEVs, it's also a problem with FCEVs; i.e., the fuel cell charges the battery which powers the motor. It's similar to a hybrid, but more vulnerable to battery faults.

"Hey that BEV works great! Let's complicate it by adding a high pressure hard-to-source fuel cell which also eliminates home fueling convenience and requires fueling station that cost 5x more than super chargers"

(3.) 0-60.
BMW uses Mirai cells so after that it's all about weight which will determine range and those are tradeoffs just like in BEVs ... a larger tank = more weight, a larger battery = more weight so you gotta pick your design trade-offs between range, speed, and efficiency. To jad03060's point, BMW can easily make a fast FCEV ... will they?

(4.) Cost.
My 2 cents is, assuming FCEVs improbably continue, costs will come down just like for EVs.

(5.) Refueling Time (I added this one )
For EVs this depends mostly on the anode - VW & Tesla have improved this by adding synthetic graphite mixed with silicon: that's what gets a Taycan down to 18 min to 80% ... and it can probably go lower by another 10%-20% for that chemistry ... the battery chemistry levers are:



The holy grail, though, is replacing the anode & lithium electrolyte for a solid-state, solid metal lithium battery.

This energy density chart from QuantumScape is simpler than it looks - along the bottom are various cathode chemistries and the y-axis is the anode chemistries ...



You can see that a metal battery could DOUBLE cell density, i.e., range & power ... but also CHARGING TIME! There are existing batteries in pilot reliably re-charging FULLY in 10-15 minutes.

And THAT time is important because the average US highway rest stop time is ~12 minutes, which is probably similar globally:



So BEVs are already at 15 minutes to 80%, that will come down even with existing chemistries, solid state batteries (~5 years?) will bring that down quite a bit further, and there even other technologies playing around with charging times <5 minutes ... so we could see BEVs with <2 sec 0-60 times, <5 min recharge, and ranges of 800+ miles!

Why would we add high-pressure hydrogen to that?

And, BTW, hydrogen requires vehicles to have MANDATORY expiration dates:

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by jad03060

A kilo or two a week would keep most vehicles running without having to stop somewhere and refill there. Doable.

FYI, on burning hydrogen directly, i.e., not a fuel cell:

[jad03060]

Just like propane tanks have an expiration date, it's the tank on a FCEV that is likely the thing that has an expiration date...time will tell.

[James_G0540i]

Damn it, we just need a flux capacitor !