GM to Offer Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles in Four-Year

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Such is ALWAYS the case... :lol: :lol:

 

How much electricity is it? I don't know how much of a difference electric cars will make on the grid. I've heard arguments both ways, but never seen any hard numbers. From looking at darelldd's comments, it looks like using the EVs doesn't increase his electric usage that much (I know he has solar, but he still knows how much he uses), but then again, he has significantly improved his home efficiency, and doesn't seem to drive that much/far. So, I don't have numbers, but I just wonder how much of an impact it would actually make.

The counter argument I've heard is that if the batteries on the EV are charged at night when the load is lower (using a timer for your charger), it's not that big of a deal because the power companies have to keep running constantly, but usage is down, so a lot of that energy is wasted. So, I'm wondering if some relatively moderate efficiency improvements in the average home (switch to CFL, seal house well, add some insulation, lower the thermostat, eliminate ghost load, and switch out a few appliances to energy star) would balance the EV draw. I've done #1, 4, and 6 on this list and dropped my electricity usage by 100 kWH/month. I'm working on the others currently.

Anybody got any numbers to help settle this?

 

Looks like a lot of people are refusing to face the idea of oil running out!

We will have only electric cars and hydrogen cars. Both are needed. Not everyone has access to a plug, but hydrogen will probably be more costly.

Aircraft will also have to use hydrogen.

 

OK - so I checked darelldd's website and found 300WH/mile. For both my husband and I, who both currently have pretty long commutes (22 & 15 miles each way) that comes out to 541 kWH, and with our current rates, that's about $43 in electricity versus $99 in gas at current prices.

But, that is alot of kWH. So, I see that we still do have a ways to go with our efficiency improvements before we could "cancel out" the draw from two EV's. Maybe with the sealing, insulation and solar hot water heater...... Hmmm... Hopefully we will soon both have shorter commutes, also. It is neat to see that it comes out cheaper, even not taking advantage of time of use rates. Also, one thing about this whole argument is that obviously overnight switching to EV's will not occur, and efficiency, battery, grid, and solar improvements will help all of this make more and more sense, I think. Hydrogen may be part of the answer, but not all of it!

 

The average US household uses around 10,000 kWh of electricity per year. According to the Department of Energy, the average annual travel of all household vehicles was 12226 miles in 2001. According to the Department of Transportation, there was an average of 1.9 vehicles per household in 2001.

So, if you look back at the recent "1000 mile EV car" topic, it is stated in the referenced article that a 300 kWh battery will power a car for 1000 miles. Therefore, the average household car, which travels 12,226 miles a year, would consume 3,668 kWh of electricity each year. With an average of 1.9 vehicles per household, that would be 6,969 kWh of electricity per household.

Therefore, if every household vehicle was an EV vehicle today, then household electricity consumption would increase 70%.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the #'s. So that this will not happen overnight is a good thing! And not currently viable. But with oil disappearing or at least becoming more and more scarce and expensive, EV's are still overall more efficient and make sense compared to hydrogen, in my opinion. I think the windmill ship is interesting, but it sounds like it might be only a small piece of the puzzle.

For my part, I plan to continue to invest in reducing my personal electricity usage and educating others about doing the same. I also hope to go all solar in the next 10 years, and phase in to PHEV and EV vehicles as that becomes more and more possible, and to reduce my driving in general. I think hybrids are a great bridge technology that will pave the way to EVs and hydrogen may play a part, but only once it can be made sustainably and efficiently, which is not the case today. I do appreciate that this is being worked on however, because we'll need more than one answer. I'd still prefer a plug-in hydrogen hybrid. Or at least a hydrogen hybrid.

 

Many EVs (such as the 0-60 in 3.6s T-Zero) can achieve 4-5 miles per kWh, and this is likely to improve as the technology matures from its current beginnings.

Go around your house and replace the lightbulbs with energy saving bulbs, put in A-energy efficiency rated dish and clothes washers and fridge freezers etc. and generally improve your home insulation and efficiency. You could easily save 300 kilowatt-hours per month.

In an efficient EV, that's enough for 1200-1500 miles per month.

No extra burden on the national grid and an end to the monthly gasoline bill from simply paying attention to efficiency around the home. EVs are where it's at.

 

Okay

How much energy would be saved if every household stopped using gasoline? Some suggest it would be a wash. It takes a lot of energy to make gasoline from oil.

 

If we're comparing BEVs to FCVs, then I'm not sure what the question is. BEVS already demonstrate more range, quicker startup, equally fast refill. Both electric technologies will require more energy to heat or cool the cabin. No surprise. a BEV can simply do it cleaner, more efficiently, simpler and for far less cost.

I use heat and AC all the tme in my BEV. Impact on range is less than using AC in a traditional car, and can almost safely be ignored. Or, to put it another way, driving 2mph slower MORE than makes up for the extra energy consumed with heat or AC on full.

 

Right! An EV will require 1/4 the energy of a FCV for the same number of miles. So if we're worried about power for an EV, we shouldn't even be considering FCV. We're already generating as much electricity as a BEV would need - just to make gasoline for regular cars. We don't need MORE electricity for a shift to BEVs. We just need to use what we're already making!

This sounds dreamy, but seems hugely energy inefficient from where I sit. The power to get the big ships out and back, the energy needed to compress the H2 for any kind of meaningful storage (talk about un-dense energy!) and the horribly corrosive environment that would require energy and money in maintenance.... If this works, we should build permanent turbines out there, and just wire the power directly back to shore without throwing so much of it away in the conversion to H2. Converting electricity to H2 is a giant energy sink.

 

In my crystal ball, I see the availability of electrical outlets as ALWAYS being more common than places to buy H2! We still have infinitely more electrical outlets than gas stations today. I sure don't see that changing with expensive H2 filling stations.

 

Great numbers for back-of-the-napkin calculations here!

One HUGE thing that is missed here is what Allan has already pointed out. BEVs would not be additive. The idea is that we replace our 1.9 gasoline cars with BEVs. Those 1.9 cars that we own today are powered by gasoline, and gasoline requires HUGE amounts of electricity to create! If we could magically shift all gasoline electricity over to BEV charging, bingo. Game over. I can drive about 25 miles on the electricity required to make a gallon of gasoline.

Let me add also that my home (2,250 sq feet) consumes 600 kWh per month on average. And that INCLUDES our EV transportation. We have heat, AC... all the modern conveniences. 600 kWh per month is my average. Of course I now cover most of that with my PV array, but I'm talking about my usage regardless of where my power comes from. And please note here that while we don't have a choice of where our gasoline comes from, we CAN choose where our electricity comes from. We won't all need it from the grid! And we will be using most of it at night when demand is already low.

And finally - I've heard that we might not drive the EV much... We are averaging over 11k miles on the primary BEV. It is the GAS car that we don't drive much. That one sees about 3k miles/year. I have a friend who now has 87k miles on his Rav4EV in under years!

 

Well said! Odd that folks feel the "need" to cancel out their automotive power with household power though. Does anybody think about that with their gas usage? I get this all the time when I tell people that I don't buy gasoline. The response is usually "oh, but your power bill sure goes up!" Well, yeah. But not by as much as my gas bill does down. And the net energy usage is WAY the hell lower, if that counts for anything. Add PV, and suddenly this all smells like roses.

I have neighbors who use more electricity to maintain their pool (by a factor of 3:1) than I use to power my EV for 12k miles/year! Where is the outcry about that consumption?! I'd bitch about pool power before I'd bitch about clean transportation power that replaces gasoline power!

Ug. Welcome to Darell Rant day on PC. Sorry guys. I get a bit passionate about this subject.

 

The point was that electricity from EV vehicles would have to come from fixed sources connected to the almost at capacity power grid. Sources that would undoutably use fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Hydrogen could be produced at locations where natural energy is free and then shipped far distances if needed for consumption. For instance, windmill ships out in the open ocean can move to where the winds are strongest, while fixed windmill installations are subject to downtime due to lack of wind. You could move hydrogen production to places like Iceland for instance, where geothermal energy if plentiful and free. Iceland and other such similar places are a bit far from Kansas to be running a electricity transmission line.

As far as the efficiency of using windmills on ships to produce and compress hydrogen... Who cares? What difference does it make if we use the open ocean wind energy at 10% efficiency or 90% efficiency? It's free, it's plentiful, it's renewable, you can't use it all up, and the only way to make practical use out of it is to convert the wind energy into a form that can be stored and transported. Hydrogen would work well for that, especially since you would have an unlimited supply of raw material from which to produce hydrogen when you are out in the open ocean.

 

How do we transport the H2 from Iceland to Kansas?

As far as the efficiency of using windmills on ships to produce and compress hydrogen... Who cares? What difference does it make if we use the open ocean wind energy at 10% efficiency or 90% efficiency? [/quote]
And if we consume more energy to perform this "free" H2 capture than the H2 contains when we get it back? Ships and turbines and electroysis units and high-ressure storage tanks are not free, or free from maintenance requirements.

Sunlight is free. And I capture that in large enough amounts to power my car - right here locally. If I were to use that same sunlight to product H2 for my car, I'd need 4x the panels at 4x the expense. But the sunlight is still free!

I do understand what you're saying... but in all cases I'm aware of - storing and transmitting electricity via the H2 carrier method is a losing proposition - in both efficiency and cost. There are some benefits to H2 and Fuel Cells for sure! The space program is one of them. I just don't see the benefit of using it for our transportation.

I found great enjoyment in the fact that you used one of my favorite arguments against me here! I often hear the line, "I won't put up PV until it is more efficient." And I respond just like you did - the sunlight is free, what do I care if I only get to use 15% of it? Better than none! And WAY better than any plant uses it!

Great discussion, folks!

 

How many people put their money where their mouth is like Darell?

Allan de

 

Here, here! Talk about good, clean fun! All it really takes is money.... would be nice to do it now, before the other cheap fuel gets expensive too!

 

Thanks for the support, Allan!

Contrary to all appearances in this thread, I am NOT out to trash everything to do with Fuel Cell vehicles.

I have experience with two Fuel Cell vehicles from the big boys (Toyota and Mercedes) and I have experience with several BEVs. I know quite a bit about the viability of these two technologies, and the costs associated with them. As a vehicle transportation fuel, H2 has MANY expensive hurdles.

In the press we hear about how glorious the Fuel Cell Age will be. And we hear about the dismal failure of Battery EVs. Surprisingly... this just isn't the case, folks... but it is what we hear. My effort here is to present some facts that not everybody hears. The most important one is how perfectly viable BEVs already are... and already have been. The auto industry has used the *promise* of FCV's as an excuse to completely abandon BEVs. BEVs are too expensive they say. Not enough infrastructure. Too big of a "change" for people to accept. Well, compared to FCV's, BEVs are the pinnacle of transportation perfection, and cost nothing. We even hear that BEVS will be powered by coal-fired plants, while FCVs (at 1/4 the efficiency) will be powered with nothing but "renewable" power. How nice that we have all that green power for the future technology, but not for today's.

So... how many FCV proponents know how long it takes to get moving in a FCV? Turn the key and go? Wait a few seconds for a beep? Any clue? How about shutting it down? Just turn the key off and step out? Anybody know how much noise they create? Effective range? Refuel time? Quantity of water dumped out the tail pipe onto your garage floor?

Odd, that none of this is brought up in the press, because these are all detractions for FCVs that are simply glossed over with the expectation (I assume) that we'll figure out a way to cross these hurdles. And then we don't seem to hear about quick-charging that we've had for 15 years, or the current state of battery technology. We just hear how "there was no market" for BEVs, and that they were "shunned." Amazing.... and quite sad when you've seen reality from the inside.