A majority of auto executives still think battery electric cars will fail, survey says

'Zactly. Just like the computer industry. There are some physical limitations that will be very difficult to overcome when it comes to rapid charging large batteries. Swapping may end up being the easiest way to proceed. A 100 mile EV range in a Prime hybrid would be a very popular vehicle.

 

I responded to a direct quote from the article.

 

thanks, i looked like you were responding to me in post #13.

 

Read post #6.

 

i did, that's what made it all so confusing.

 

the way i see it is, most (many) people want what they want, and if prices and regulation had no effect, they would want the large, comfortable and fast.
then there's the politicians. fortunately, many would like to clean up our environment, create renewable power sources, bring the grid into the 21st century, and send the middle east packing. but it's a constant battle.
then there are natural forces which are uncontrollable to an extent, and they help determine the future.
the car companies want to protect their interests, and to the extent that ev's make it easier for new players to enter, that is a big concern. also, dealerships, who are worried about their future.
musk has turned the industry on its head, and if you don't think these fat cats are concerned, i have to disagree. for some people, enough is never enough.

 

so, everyone has a bev, drives to work, and... what? hopefully they don't all plug in, but some large percentage likely will, and that will be a huge load. like I said, without some global charge management going on, it's going to be a mess.

and let's not even talk about tesla's truck. if he ever get's that thing working and it gets wide adoption, then all bets are off. the vast majority of energy is used in trucks not cars, and trucks certainly aren't going to play by any charge schedule. they're going to charge when they're sleeping and spend every other minute driving.

 

-Proper- recharging stations have a battery to allow rapid charging without a huge draw on the electrical grid. That battery recharges more slowly off the grid when you leave. Of course, if there's a lineup of EVs waiting to charge, it will be slower. We're talking about "DC charging" here, and it can be done fairly rapidly (I've seen claims of 20 min to 80%). At any rate, the electrical grid WILL adapt when it becomes necessary. Of course, the actual source of that power may or may not be carbon free.

I see Iceland has at least one recharging station powered by the sun, which makes H2. That is then run through a fuel cell to generate the power needed to recharge the EV. This IS an efficient way to "store" power. I suspect it's better than batteries regarding space and cost issues. But the storage tank is large so stationary use only.

One further thing holding back fuel cell use is storage of sufficient H2 on the vehicle. The patent is owned by an oil company to use a nickel matrix (allowing about 10X the H2 at the same pressure, according to the report I saw). I'm not saying the oil company is dragging their feet. I would never say that!

 

Sounds interesting...
Do you have patent no and.or date?
Sounds a little like lithium dueteride which is unfort H_bomb fuel otherwise we could use to store H2, I believe it gets some limited use for BEV/H2 toys but I am confused about it.

 

You didn't do the math, you just made it up. I did do the math and it's nowhere near the problem you make it out to be. Do yourself a favor and look up the capacity factor of the US power grid right now.

That's another falsehood. Why don't you try actually look up this stuff and doing the math before you spout nonsense?

 

While I too have trouble seeing current grid and capacity coping with a sudden 100% adoption of electric cars and trucks, I believe that the industry can change and adopt very quickly when motivated by profits and/or loss there of.

The key point here is that sudden 100% adoption is not realistic. Things will change gradually and the grid and electric capacity will adapt to the change in step (or at least close to in step) with demand.

As someone wise once noticed: Stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. Electrified transportation is vastly superior in just about every way to ICE based transportation. The issues of grid, capacity, battery (or a whole other energy storage) technology will be solved simply because there is going to be more profit in it. It is a more efficient way. That's all there is to it. That is the simplest and undeniable truth of the matter. That means that at some point someone will figure out how to monetize the extra efficiency. Once that is achieved oil will be forgotten as a source of locomotive energy very quickly. Right now energy density is on the side of oil, but that's about the only advantage. ICE is so much more complicated and inefficient, not to mention polluting that there is good climate for entrepreneurial spirit to flourish ( Elon). The rest is going to be history.

 

The FC car dream has not completely died due to lobbying interest and one key advantage over BEV: fast refueling.

That refueling speed advantage gap is narrowing quickly though, and BEV stomps on FC when it comes to efficiency, infrastructure, cost and reliability.

 

Agreed, with one additional advantage for a section of the auto market.
Convenience!
For a section of the market, BEVs have a huge advantage in convenience. That section started small, but is growing every year.

 

at least i can charge my bev at home, and only have to concern myself with refueling on long trips.
fc owners need to have refueling local just to begin with.

 

Here is a good video on the Power Wall.

 

No it doesn't but it's not intuitive as to why. The reason is all the dead weight an ev has to carry around all the time for the 5% of the time it's needed. The energy lost by that weight is about the same as the energy lost by a FC PHV.

 

The Honda Clarity FCV has a curb weight of 4134 lbs ... before adding the short range EV component to the car.
The Tesla Model 3 SR curb weight is 3549 lbs

When I spoke of efficiency I was thinking of using wind or solar PV electricity directly in a BEV compared to taking that electricity and first converting it to hydrogen and then pressurizing the gas. Or taking heat E.g. in a solar thermal plant and either running it through a steam turbine to make electricity of using the heat in Super high Temp NG reformation. The typical NG scenario wherein the gas is either combusted to electricity in an efficient power plant or converted into H2 and then used via SMR and then used in a FC favors the BEV.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64267.pdf

 

So was I. But I did it apples to apples - same car, same energy, same driving cycle. It works out almost a dead wash - the difference (2%) was well within the margins created by the assumptions (which driving cycle, which tires, environment).

 

I don't see how. Show your analysis or give a reference.