VW says, fuel cells stupid for the next decade.

Hydrogen is a long-term goal, intended to be generated using renewable sources later. In the meantime, we're stuck with fossil sources.

Also note that hydrogen serves as a storage medium for utilities, to take advantage of energy collection opportunity.

 

But the Phys.org calculation shows Hydrogen generated renewably (from water) loses 70% of the source electricity. A battery-powered car only loses 35%, so doesn't it make sense to choose the more-energy efficient option & make that our future car? (Perhaps for somebody who thinks Toyota does no wrong, the Mirai should be supported, but as an EE my job is viewing the cold, hard facts without emotional baggage.)

 

Is there a down side to manufacturing batteries, and disposing of old ones? I'm asking about batteries for EV that will go 250-300 miles between charge.

 

I'm not sure import strikes an objective meaning. In this case, how would you mean important?

whether i think of vw's recent scandal, and Toyota hydrogen lobby/PR - i think of a different Depeche Mode tune;

If it's 100° all summer outside - i can burn natural gas to make electricity to cool my home, or i can add 8 or 10hW's of solar panels - which add ZERO CO2 to the environment's mix. The honest choice seems pretty evident - at least for the current few decades.
.

 

How outdated is that loss data and where exactly will that electricity be stored prior to reaching the vehicle?

I find it amazing how many people think the grid can just hold all the electricity we need indefinitely. It provides transport, not storage.

Reality is, the sun only shines and the wind only blows at limited times. The energy captured must somehow be stored until it is needed. Hydrogen provides a means of doing that.

 

Speak for yourself
I expect to be off fossil fuels many, many years before we see hydrogen public fueling stations in MN.

 

So? I'll be relying heavily on renewable sources too. That means nothing for the masses though.

When you scale up from thousands to 100's of thousands, issues arise.

The co-existence of FCV and EV will address that.

 

I don't really care if it's EV or FCV so long as it goes about 300 miles and doesn't take long to fill it up.

Fuel Cells seem to be Toyota's answer to the fill time. H2 will work in any H2 car. Finding a station to quick change the battery for "my" car may be more challenging on a long cross country drive. One battery type will not fit in all cars. I don't see 300 mile batteries charging in 20 minutes anytime in the near future.

 

now that we understand vw, i might have to rethink my f/c position.

 

Well, 'disposing' of old plug in and hybrid batteries could just mean putting them to a different use. When most BEV packs hit the point where reduced capacity isn't enough for the owner's daily needs, there is still a decent amount of capacity left that could be enough for other uses, such as back up to cell towers. Toyota took old hybrid batteries and installed them at some dealerships to save on electric by peak shaving, or time shifting, when they bought the electric and when used it.

After that, the batteries can be recycled. Some chemistries legally have to be, i.g. lead-acid and Ni Cad. Others aren't as toxic, and whether they will be recycled comes down to cost.

The new BEV Porsche just unveiled might be able to do it.
But considering how most cars are used day to day, recharging that fast isn't a real need for BEVs. If you don't want wait for charging on longer trips, plug in hybrids can give you the day to day advantages of a BEV, fast refill of liquid fuels, and lower cost than a FCEV.

 

If I was a one car owner, I would not buy a BEV. I drive up to 600 miles/day to other states and stay in hotels. It's not practical for long cross-country travel yet.

 

Keep dreaming, fossil fuels are not going away anytime soon. Your great grand children will still be on fossils.

DBCassidy

 

I expect he was referring to his electric car. But, even electric cars charge up using some fossil fuel at the power plant.

Living in a world with nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar electricity as our only energy is a very long way away, if ever. So, you're right. Our great grand children will most likely use some fossil fuels.

It's that total carbon foot print thing. Can't operate an electric car in a vacum.

 

Then the BEV won't work for you. Fortunately, you aren't being forced into one, and you are free to decide which PHV, hybrid, diesel, or plain old gasoline car works for you. Fuel cell may even be an option, but I don't see hydrogen powered ones working for you for a long time. The infrastructure simply isn't there, and will cost billions. It is possible to run them on diesel, gasoline, alcohol, NG, or even ammonia though

 

Physical laws are eternal. The graph posted on page 2 has not changed, and neither has the inherent losses of converting water to hydrogen and back to water. (Battery EVs don't have that phase change loss.) You cannot violate Thermodynamic Law just through wishing or hoping.

As for storage there are several methods: Batteries & caps are the main ones used by power companies. Some homes/businesses/factories heat giant tanks of water & then use that heat later. All three methods are far, far more efficient than converting water-to-hydrogen-and-back, since they eliminate "phase change" losses.

 

Conversion losses aren't eliminated though.

For a utility company to store electricity, it must be converted from AC to DC. Later when it is transferred to users, it must then be converted from the stored DC back to AC again. The user will then receive that AC and convert it back to DC for storage in their battery. Stored as hydrogen instead, it just stays in that form.

There's the scale-up problem too. Utility companies won't have the capacity available to store that much. Only so many battery-banks are realistic. Massive tanks holding hydrogen would work better at that larger magnitude.

 

How many times must CO-EXIST be mentioned before it is finally accepted that this isn't an either/or situation? One solution will not fix all.

We grew up in a society that worked hard for single solutions. It was always thought of as one technology replacing another. The duality of our future isn't going to come easy because of that. Fortunately, we are seeing glimpses of hope. Look at the computer market now. There's a wide variety of ways to interact with the digital world and it's for the most part working just fine. People have come to accept differences, rather than fight for just one approach.

Transportation will have a similar outcome. The other choice won't be looked upon as an alternative, like some fuels are now. It will simply be the norm. Some people will have this. Others will have that. No big deal.

Remember the goals, all of them. We are not simply replacing transportation technologies with the intent of using the least amount of electricity possible. After all, it is renewable. There is a pressing need to also reduce overall emissions, while at the same time not cause economies to fall apart.