How is swapping batteries 'a lot more practical' than the Clarity. You didn't answer the question.Originally Posted by cjameshuff
Order of Kilopi
How is swapping batteries 'a lot more practical' than the Clarity. You didn't answer the question.
Established Member
The Clarity is more complex, and will demand more user maintenance and interaction than any swappable battery car.
Gaseous hydrogen is more prone to leaking than gasoline, and actively destroys any container it is in.
Order of Kilopi
I did. By being cheaper, denser, safer, more convenient, less wasteful...by not using hydrogen.
Hydrogen's a terrible choice of an energy carrier. It's difficult to transport and store (you were worried about storing batteries and loading the grid...how do you plan to get the hydrogen to the filling station, and where are you going to put it?), low density, notoriously prone to leaks and explosively flammable in a wide range of concentrations, and offers no advantages over the other options. A battery swap system is cheaper, simpler, lower maintenance, and safer than a system that involves filling a 5000 psi storage tank (which is then exposed to the stresses of the automotive environment) with leak-prone and explosive gas. Hydrogen is not and will never be a practical automotive fuel.
The Clarity fails a second way by using an utterly impractical fuel cell system. It does work, but is ludicrously expensive. Fuel cells might eventually be a viable option, but they'll need to burn some other fuel...probably methane...and they'll need completely new catalysts to have a hope of being cheap enough. Their sensitivity to contamination could also easily keep them from ever being used. An exception would be the fuel cells that use metallic fuels like zinc or aluminum...which would in fact fit seamlessly with the swappable battery approach.
Order of Kilopi
Whoops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffRag...ailpage#t=167s
Clearly we have differing opinions on this - but you keep harking on as if the Clarity doesn't exist. It does. It works. It works better than any battery car. That's not opinion - it's a fact.
I'm not going to discuss it any more with you - I've laid out my opinion, and explained why I hold it. That top gear video explains, perfectly, why I hold it.
Established Member
200 cars over 3 years is hardly mass production. It's a beta test.
That's a full work week to carefully lay out each car. These are practically engineer crafted prototypes... all of them... at that sort of rate. I have serious reservations about a mass production hydrogen tank system under maintenance by an average driver being a good idea. No I'm not afraid of fire. The things will leak all the fuel away. THESE are not production vehicles. These are barely more "here" than a concept car at an auto show.
Order of Kilopi
Never said it was mass production. I have again and again said that I believe the Clarity is what the cars of TOMORROW will be like. (and clearly this thread isn't about cars of today, as it's talking about 'self-charging electric cars' )
4 years ago, Honda had got the cost to make each one to something like $20k more than the cost of a Tesla Roadster.
"Leak all the fuel away"
Please cite one case in the 4 years they've been on the road when a Clarity has 'leaked all the fuel away"
Order of Kilopi
He specifically mentioned the Clarity.
Anyway, I'm surprised you used that video as an example. The guy in the video has a classic misconception, when he montions the price of hydrogen and says "Unlike petrol, hydrogen will never run out." Clearly, he doesn't realize that hydrogen isn't even available unless it is produced, and it is produced from fossil fuels, with the cost based on that.
It works, but it's impractical. It's economically infeasible. That's not opinion, that's fact.It does. It works. It works better than any battery car. That's not opinion - it's a fact.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Like the electricity in a Tesla.
We are all just going around in circles here guys.
Order of Kilopi
No, disposable zinc-air batteries are used in various low power consumer electronics. We're discussing the possibility of fuel cells, and zinc-air fuel cells aren't. Such zinc-air fuel cells would be reusable, and thus potentially suitable for cars, or laptops.
Order of Kilopi
Really, this is a deal killer for the Clarity. There simply isn't any hope for platinum to become much less expensive in the near future. It certainly won't happen from economies of scale!!!
So, there is absolutely positively no way for Clarity to be the car of the future. Something like it might be, but it would have to use different technology. In the meantime, new battery technology continues to be developed, with extremely profitable market forces providing plenty of incentive to keep it going.
Order of Kilopi
What about improved specific energy? Lithium based batteries are nowhere near theoretical limits.
Order of Kilopi
My issue would be charge time. But better/smaller batteries would make swapping a lot easier, so it improves the argument for swapping.
Frankly, though, I doubt it will be an issue for decades. It's easiest/cheapest to replace fossil fuel for electricity production if you're going to replace it at all, and I expect fuel efficient conventional vehicles (or maybe hybrids) will beat alternatives for decades. For CO2 concerns, there isn't much point to alternatives if their energy is ultimately coming from fossil fuels (and can be worse if the "well to wheel" efficiency is lower). For pollution in general, there isn't much room for improvement beyond the ultra-clean models.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
This is why i hold that wither fuel cells, batteries or just plain going with 1 to 1 replacing petrol with synthetic petrol makes no real difference except in how expensive it is to change over to these systems.
Ïf you want to save the environment to use an old saying, then you need to go to the source of the energy being used by these vehicles and start the changes there. (cough nuclear cough)
Clean cars are ultimately only as clean as their energy source. and in some cases. going for an alternative energy carrier like hydrogen can actually decrease the source to consumption efficiency a lot. batteries have the upper hand here. it is a highly efficient way to store energy, and wires makes for a very efficient way to transport energy. (given that batteries aren't refilled at some central location and then trucked around like we do with fuel) the drawback is that it takes time to recharge, and batteries are fairly expensive in their own right.
Synfuels have the advantage of not requiring any infrastructure changes. so initially synfuel is where it should be for most consumers. people like their old vehicles and tend to hang onto them.
But hydrogen? give me a break. it's too volatile to be truly practical. real world car owners should not be trusted with maintaining anything that has hydrogen under pressure in it.
It is way better to react that hydrogen with carbon and go for syn fuels that are way more stable. don't require pressurized fuel tanks and so forth.
Order of Kilopi
That didn't answer my question. You said I was talking about internal combustion and you come back with a reply comparing fuel cell to battery. If you keep inferring a different discussion than I am making, then I'm not going to take your comments seriously.
I don't know that. At the moment I have the opinion that it will be more difficult than fuel cell refilling (and I'm not talking about just hydrogen. I'm sure there can be other synthetic alternatives)
And, never did I say that electric vehicles don't have a place for the future. I see both as viable options for different lifestyles.
I don't see that as an issue since we already do that. Would it be an improvement to end that? Maybe, but I don't value it as a large factor.
Order of Kilopi
The theoretical limit still isn't great, and specific energy is only one of the problems with electric cars. Lithium batteries in particular age poorly, take time to charge, and don't tolerate temperature extremes very well. Yes, they're working on faster charging, but there's tradeoffs in lifespan and energy capacity that result. They are also prone to catastrophic failure, generally with warning signs while being charged. Batteries will need to be swapped regularly just as standard maintenance, doing it as common practice will improve battery lifetime and ensure that failing batteries can quickly be taken out of service...being more convenient than waiting for the car to charge is just a side benefit.
It also gives a way to upgrade the battery technology over time independently of the vehicles, and prevents vehicles from becoming obsolete as soon as the manufacturers stop making replacement batteries for some proprietary system.
Order of Kilopi
The theoretical limit of lithium-air batteries is 13kWh/kg, which is about as much as gasoline.
If replacement only needs to be done once every few years, then you don't need quick swap service stations everywhere. It can be a procedure on par with replacing tires.Batteries will need to be swapped regularly just as standard maintenance, doing it as common practice will improve battery lifetime and ensure that failing batteries can quickly be taken out of service...being more convenient than waiting for the car to charge is just a side benefit.
Order of Kilopi
Batteries can have some benefits to the owners of battery electric vehicles, at least in principle. On a household level, batteries have the potential to shift electric power consumption to times when it's less expensive (i.e. more available). This can provide more of a marginal economic benefit than the equivalent in fuel cells.
Order of Kilopi
Everyone going home at the end of the work day and plugging in their vehicles to recharge puts that load right in the middle of the residential peak power usage. Battery swapping is needed to really achieve that benefit, allowing batteries to be charged during the lowest-demand periods. A swap station might even profit from selling some energy back to the utility during high demand periods, if there is a sufficient stockpile of charged batteries to handle the expected near-term number of vehicles.
Synthetic hydrocarbons can have a similar benefit, adjusting production based on power demand, and could also potentially use process heat directly from the power plant.
Order of Kilopi
Maybe someone thinks that since fuel cells are used in space, creating a market for them on earth will result in economies of scale reducing their cost for space and making space that much more accessible.
I don't see it though. The Battery options seems better.
Battery ——————————————————————— Hydrogen Fuel Cell
More flexibility with replacements —————————— not generally removable
safe home charging ————————————————— Not generally available or safe
any-lot charger placement simplicity ———————— Not available
eco-friendly power source with less conversion ——— electrolysis of water from nuclear or renewables possible with conversion inefficiency
What are the negatives of hydrogen fuel cells?
Mechanically explosive
chemically explosive
spills water onto pavement
Feel free to add to the list.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
If the charging system has a programmable delay or a price-o-meter, then no, it won't charge during peak energy usage.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
The first point was directed at your comment, the second part was a general comparison of what we have now with what we could have with an electric car based system. It wasn't specifically directed at you.
I just think it would be more practical to use an energy source that has been in widespread use for over a century, has transmission lines that cover a sizable portion of many developed countries and that can be supplied almost instantaneously. Removing and recharging depleted batteries isn't going to be all that complicated with the level of automation we have today, think of a carwash style refill station where your car is conveyed in one end, the battery pack unfastened and removed at the first station and your car moved to the second where a fresh battery is replaced and off you go. No pumping a highly flamable liquid or gas into a tank or fuel cell and no need to ship and store products that can and sometimes do explode and burn. Hydrogen is going to be difficult to handle and to even contain without a fairly extensive and expensive infrastructure. We already know how to transmit electricity. For storing and recharging the spent batteries you could have a carousel style system that maximizes the use of space.I don't know that. At the moment I have the opinion that it will be more difficult than fuel cell refilling (and I'm not talking about just hydrogen. I'm sure there can be other synthetic alternatives)
And, never did I say that electric vehicles don't have a place for the future. I see both as viable options for different lifestyles.
I can't see where I said you don't support electrical vehicles at all, I was just pointing out what seemed the best option in terms of efficiency, safety and pollution.
I think it would be an improvement. The transmission of electricity is alreay fairly safe as long as basic precautions are taken. Pipelines often leak and sometimes explode, benzene is a carcinogen and there's also the pollution risk. Also by not burning hydrocarbons in the center of populated areas you can seriously reduce air pollution. In some areas without access to the electrical grid then fuel cells would provide an alternative, it just seems simpler and much more efficient to use electrical power for transportation where possible.I don't see that as an issue since we already do that. Would it be an improvement to end that? Maybe, but I don't value it as a large factor.
And if you go nuclear in a big way as I support then you end up with a very low emission transportation system, think of L.A. with a fraction of the smog.
Order of Kilopi
Actually, liquid gasoline doesn't burn, it's the vapor that burns. I've seen people extinguish flaming matches in gasoline. A gas tank can explode as a BLEVE, but that's a couple causality chains down the road from spontaneous, which might occur with hydrogen and, to a much lesser extent, with lithium batteries.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Then you won't have a charged up car when you are most likely to want one.
Established Member
I've also seen people knocked off their feet when they've gone to light piles of wood they've doused in gasoline. It does readily vapourise and burn.
Electricity does offer advantages in safe transmission and use. There's also going to be a lot less vehicles on the road transporting hazardous materials.
Order of Kilopi
As long as that's clear, I don't have any issue with the discussion.
I think our only impasse at this point is perception, but that seems to be driven a lot by opinion and speculation.
You don't seem that fuel cells have a place. Is that true?
Now that's just grabbing at straws.
If that were an issue, then the world would be in complete panic if it rained.
Established Member
I think there's room for a variety of technologies to provide power, the use of electrical based systems to power mainstream transportation just seems safer, more efficient and cleaner to me. Fuel cells are going to be more of a niche market I think, but as you say that is my opinion.
Order of Kilopi
Not nearly as readily as hydrogen. Hydrogen can explode at anywhere between 4% and 75% concentration. And of course, getting any reasonable amount of hydrogen into the vehicle (assuming you consider putting hydrogen in an automobile to be reasonable at all) requires enormous tanks at dangerous pressures, or smaller tanks at terrifying pressures, so the hydrogen in an automotive tank can explode quite effectively even without ignition. A bursting 350 bar tank will do a bit more than knock you off your feet.
Lithium batteries are quite flammable themselves, and can easily start a fire due to mechanical or electrical abuse. They aren't anything like hydrogen, but I wouldn't consider them to be inherently safer than hydrocarbon fuels.
I won't rule out fuel cells...it's possible some revolutionary catalyst will make them practical. However, it'll take such a revolutionary development, and it's not a given that such a thing will happen. I will rule out hydrogen, it's just a terrible choice.
Batteries are feasible, but the battery swap and charging infrastructure to make them generally practical will be expensive. I don't see them competing well with synthetic hydrocarbons, which require little or no infrastructure or vehicle changes. Given that revolution in fuel cell technology, fuel cells might compete with internal combustion engines as a way to make use of that hydrocarbon fuel...butane would be an ideal fuel for them: easily liquefiable at moderate pressures, but with short carbon chains high in hydrogen content, nowhere near the sealing and material compatibility issues of hydrogen, and in case of a leak or spill, it rapidly evaporates and is lighter than air.
Order of Kilopi
When is non-peak and how long does the battery take to charge and from what level of charge to what level of charge? And do you want a "charged up car" and why, and do you know the potential problems with a "charged up car" (e.g. battery chemistry issues)?
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
burn /= explode, and that presupposes a leak, which is as I stated, "a couple of causality chains down the road... ."
It's just a different type of hazardous material.Electricity does offer advantages in safe transmission and use. There's also going to be a lot less vehicles on the road transporting hazardous materials.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Not if it's used to help power the grid while parked in a garage.Now that's just grabbing at straws.
If that were an issue, then the world would be in complete panic if it rained.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote