I think that's a more practical next generation system. It's also possible to use hydrogen to fuel IC engines - so you get a choice of two technologies sharing the same fuel and existing vehicles can be converted to it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
Efficiency are poor on hydrogen fuel cell.......... you'd require a lot more electricity to power those cars than battery EV's.
If the hydrogen fuel station is using solar or wind energy to create the hydrogen the fuel is 'free' after the initial costs of making & installing the fuel station is recovered........
Same can be said for battery equipped charging stations. Except it is able to allow battery EV charged there to drive a lot more miles than fuel cell hydrogen.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars now have a range of 310-380 miles and take just as long as an ICE car to refuel. Much more convenient than if you should need to refuel an EV.Same can be said for battery equipped charging stations. Except it is able to allow battery EV charged there to drive a lot more miles than fuel cell hydrogen.
Almost twice more miles, in fact.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/1...battery-electric-vehicles-technology-rundown/
For certain uses battery cars are superior. For other purposes IC cars are better. Logically we want both types to be available and for people to be free to choose what suits their needs. Unfortunately some people treat these decisions as a matter of religion and feel it is their duty to turn everyone into true believers.
How many hydrogen fuel station explosions have there been. I can only find evidence of the one.
Yes (although 300/400 miles would be better). From a convenience point of view for individuals and also for infrastructure. You speak about installing chargers at blocks of flats, car parks, etc etc. That will be prohibitively expensive and inefficient. HS2 could begin to look cheap. Who pays for it?
Why is it a gamble? Don't really see any difference from stopping to fill up with petrol or diesel, just another fuel source.
Is that to do with the level of need/demand from early adopters making it uneconomic or was it impractical? Genuine question
We standardised on AA, AAA etc batteries. Why not for cars?
The wiring will be designed to cater for lighting load. Start adding in 400/500 kW of charging capability and it's very possible that the existing infrastructure would need to be ripped out and relaid.
Local government, car manufacturers and energy providers.
Difference is that the battery is the most component of the car. It would be more like swapping an ICE, putting in one of a minimal standard that may be lower quality than your current one.
It's mainly what happens to cars after the first owner's 3 years ownership. Zoe battery owned cars go really quickly while battery rental cars stay in dealership with little interest. At around 2015, Nissan bought out program to allow battery rentals to be bought out.Is that to do with the level of need/demand from early adopters making it uneconomic or was it impractical? Genuine question
Go checkout Kensington and surround boroughs, Ubitricity have installed lamp post chargers without any sign of ripping out roads.
Not trying to turn anyone.
Manufacturers: don't really see the incentive for them, unless they have some sort of exclusivity on the connection long term. i.e. you're tied into that brand.
Might be to do with the current low level of uptake making the economics not work properly, don't know.
You've obviously got a huge amount of knowledge on the subject and are very enthusiastic. You do come across as a little bit evangelical about it at times though
Ev's are already too expensive, that will just push the price up even higher.
In a battery swap scenario you wouldn't own the battery, but instead would pay a small rental fee in addition to the electricity cost. This would have the benefit of dropping the initial purchase price of an EV and remove all the concerns of battery life & capacity a relatively minor issue in EV ownership. Yes, it would require that all EVs were limited to a couple of battery designs (1 small for town cars, 1 large for everything else) and it would also deal with the embarrassingly stupid proprietary connector debacle that we presently see.
Sorry, I have combined supplier and network operator. Because it being a public charging infrastructure, you are unable to choose and switch electricity suppliers. I think you got the gist non-the-less. Whoever you pay for charging pays for initial installation, meaning, on top of the electricity cost, you pay a very small portion of install cost.
The thing is, the importance of the battery is on-par to ICE in a fossil fueled car. Its importance cannot be compared to fuel tank or any other component of the vehicle. Unlike fuel quality, the battery is a large part of the vehicle.
How does this rental-based model work with home charging? I can't get my head around this. Why would I pay for battery rental when I'll never use it? How do I know the history of the car's battery? How would used market work for battery-swapped EV's, is it going to be like battery rental Zoe's?
You are contradicting yourself. First you say with battery swap you could end up with a battery which will give you less range, then you say battery life isn't a problem as it will outlast the car. Also if you don't have the need to swap your battery and over the years of ownership the battery charge is reduced, limiting your mileage before a recharge is necessary, you have an opportunity to swap out for a fuller capacity battery very cheaply.
You've obviously got a huge amount of knowledge on the subject and are very enthusiastic. You do come across as a little bit evangelical about it at times though
Is that for tesla only?
Course you can
Consider 2 examples:
So when people buy a car, they don't view it as a depreciating asset? The depreciation averages out over time from purchase to the point you sell it.
They are installing CCS on all their supercharger stations. Tesla stations will all have standardised CCS charger connector.
That is Tesla car on Tesla new supercharger only (only 1 public site currently, I think).
A 3yr old battery range reduced by 1/5th after 3yrs. 10yr old, 2nd hand EV has reduced range over new EV.
That was an example to point out possible large difference between new battery and battery swap guarantee. Nissan degradation warranty for example, is something like 70% after 8 years. So 3 years 80% as a baseline guarantee from an organisation that works with rental battery sounds plausible.
Why is it pointless? If it helps people to understand that EV battery is the most important component in their EV, I don't think it's pointless. Battery swap is like swapping the most expensive, most important and residue value defining component of a car. Which component in an ICE car is most expensive, most important and residue value defining?
So you agree there is a breakeven point? Second sentence contradicting your first sentence.
Fuel tanks don't shrink, so yet again another pointless comparison.
Please explain your logic behind the bold statement.
Again, let me repeat this:
If you want to truly compare functionality of battery against an ICE car counterpart, it is very difficult. A fuel tank cannot produce energy, it only holds fuel, which is unusable without ICE. A fuel tank cannot provide energy to any parts of the car except the engine, whereas EV battery is like an ICE, it powers all of the car.
The electric car before 1900's were vastly different to EV today. You cannot travel long distance with those cars. The Li-on battery are the enabler for today's EV's.
Because batteries not only lose capacity but also the ability to hold charge as well as they get older and charging becomes more frequent. Also the batteries tend to get hotter more often and will require more cooling which uses up more of the battery energy.Please explain your logic behind the bold statement.
The more battery degrade, the less capacity is holds, so it will cost less to recharge each time. Why does charging more frequent will cost more overall, if overall energy used hasn't changed, only frequency of plugging in changed?
For a simplified example: When new, battery holds 100kWh every charge. You charge it 8 times and pay for 800kWh electricity.
When the car is old, battery holds 80kWh every charge. You charge it 10 times and pay for 800kWh electricity.
simples
Again, let me repeat this:
If you want to truly compare functionality of battery against an ICE car counterpart, it is very difficult. A fuel tank cannot produce energy, it only holds fuel, which is unusable without ICE. A fuel tank cannot provide energy to any parts of the car except the engine, whereas EV battery is like an ICE, it powers all of the car.
The electric car before 1900's were vastly different to EV today. You cannot travel long distance with those cars. The Li-on battery are the enabler for today's EV's.
Just because the old cars were powered by electric motor and were replaced by ICE does not mean today's electric cars are inadequate in the same way.
Similarly, just because early 1900 century we saw fit to pollute with fossil fuel, doesn't mean it is okay continue to do the same after a century of human development.
That's a non-argument. Our remote ancestors from 3.5 billion years ago would regard our atmosphere as awash with toxic oxygen and wonder how we'd let the environment get into such a mess.
Is the "battery get hotter and require more cooling" argument on the same level as "ICE get more efficient after first 5k miles"? What sort of percentage are we talking about? Sounds like it's going to be negligible.The more battery degrade, the less capacity is holds, so it will cost less to recharge each time. Why does charging more frequent will cost more overall, if overall energy used hasn't changed, only frequency of plugging in changed?
For a simplified example: When new, battery holds 100kWh every charge. You charge it 8 times and pay for 800kWh electricity.
When the car is old, battery holds 80kWh every charge. You charge it 10 times and pay for 800kWh electricity.
simples
What sort of performance did early EV's have? Can they be driven long distances by regaining large percentage of its range very quickly?
Let's look at the source: https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/toyota-engineers-flowers-to-offset-production-pollution/
But comparing to "gas-engine" cars, Prius were producing consistently less grams/km of CO2 when compared to petrol or diesel. So which type of car is cleaner over its lifetime?
Let's consider the maths:
after 3416 posts are we agreed that it`s never going to happen!!!!