Jim L wrote:
> As to the fuel cell? $750,000 is what the car is estimated to cost at the
> moment. Range? About a 100 miles. Fuel cell loses about 20% of its capacity
> per year.
Loses 20% per year? I definitely believe it. I'd love to have a source
> I did some checking and found that using electricity to create hydrogen and
> then using a fuel cell to create electricity, yields about 50% of the
> original electricity.
> Does anybody have an approx energy efficiency for charging batteries. For
> every WATT-HOUR(happy?) that your put in when charging, what is ultimately
> available for running the car?
Energy efficiency depends on how often you equalize (if such a battery
chemistry requires it), the depth of discharge (DoD), and the speed of
charge/discharge. Coulombic efficiency for various batteries: (according
to Paul Compton in an earlier EVDL e-mail see:
>Lead acid (AGM) up to 90%
>Lithium (Thundersky) 100%
He also added:
>The energy efficiency for a 100Ah Thundersky cell (cobalt chemistry) has
>been measured at 84% (100A discharge and charge)
While there is a lot of factors that affect energy efficiency for each
chemistry, you'll have a good start by guessing 85% of the coulombic
efficiency, so roughly:
NiCd: 60% (I'm not sure I believe this number or the above one; I think
it should be higher)
> Since the range is not all that much greater than an all electric car,
> wouldn't it make more sense to just go all electric?
For subscription options, see