Hunter Cook wrote:
>
> Not to run OT here (sorry David...) but this whole paragraph seems
> totally cognitively dissonant. First, isn't there at least as much
> standardization work to be done on hydrogen fueling as there would be in
> swappable batteries? I don't think either is a great idea, but I don't
> see this as any kind of win for H2. But at a more basic level, why is
> fast charging so hard to believe relative to these other options? Yes,
> it will take a lot of watts at the filling point. And it will take
> batteries at least as good as A123/Altair style cells. So? Compare those
> two hurdles (considering our preexisting electrical grid) to the
> construction of thousands of H2 stations (with all the pump and delivery
> standardization this entails) the development of halfway efficient H2
> production, safe H2 transport, and the basic drawbacks of fuel cells
> (lose efficiency over time, horrendously expensive, lose H2 while parked
> in the garage), and the fast-charging problem looks very conquerable.
>
> In short, I wouldn't go around "admitting" that H2==future just yet.
My point was this: People (not counting us, or other folks who have
already seen the wisdom in modifying our lifestyles a little to suit our
vehicles' needs) in general don't want to lose the ability to
refuel/recharge quickly. 10 minutes is *not* quickly. "Time enough to
relax and get a bite to eat" is *not* an acceptable compromise to anyone
but us out here on the fringe. 10 minutes is at least 4-5 *times* as long
as it takes to refuel my car at most pumps around here. Would I care about
this? Heck no, like others on this list I'd consider it a huge
improvement over the current state of the art. But you'll have little
success convincing the masses to make these compromises. And so far, that
10 minutes has only been demonstrated to get an EV about 40-50 miles.
The difference between the standardization effort for hydrogen refueling
and swappable batteries is massive; the two can hardly be compared. The
difference is that one is a pie-in-the-sky idea that people like us throw
around as "wouldn't it be great", and the other has the (perhaps
misplaced) financial and political backing of a supposed superpower nation
behind it. (If you'd like to start an initiative to create an
international standardized swappable EV battery infrastructure; you'd best
get started today; I'll check back with you in about 50 years.)
Hydrogen is indeed a fool's dream; it's like a battery that's more leaky
and far less efficient. But people will be convinced to use it, at the
high environmental and economic costs of fossil fuel reformation and/or
the terrible "charge efficiency" of electrolysis, simply because it's more
convenient. To hell with all other considerations -- business as usual. I
believe we as a community have little or no power to change this course in
time to make a difference.
On the other hand we can (and so far, are making good progress to)
convince people and the automotive industry that PHEVs are a good idea.
It's an electric car for X miles, then it runs on hydrocarbons. I can see
a possibility, once hydrogen vehicles become available, to convince people
that the plug-in hybrid concept is still worthwhile even just as a
money-saving concept, in that context.
I don't have the confidence in human nature or our western culture to
think that we can be saved from that mediocre future by anything less than
a battery that can be charged from "empty" for at least 150-200 miles of
driving, in 2-3 minutes. And that, I believe, is also not likely to happen
before the US and the automotive industry blindly push fuel cell
automobiles into mass production.
--
Christopher Robison
[email protected]
http://ohmbre.org <-- 1999 Isuzu Hombre + Z2K + Warp13!
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
)
