Coal power Volt vs. Gas power Prius

Depending upon where you drive the leaf, it destroys the Prius on emissions. It's not as practical, however. The progress we've seen on EVs is far more promising that H2. Don't know that we'll ever see fuel cell stacks in cars. Maybe, but who knows where battery technology will be by then. Fuels cells have a place in the present and future as stationary power/heat generators. I'm far from convinced they make any sense in an automotive scenario.

 

NG is still a fossil fuel but it is cleaner than coal.

I believe there is a synergy between battery and Fuel Cell. FC will kill range anxiety and battery can regen and provide peak power demands for FC (allowing downsizing). FC also won't require extra maintenance and it will simplify the issues Volt is having with the gas engine to extend the EV range.

Imagine Leaf with a 15kW fuel cell stack with additional 150 miles range. There won't be additional moving parts nor extra maintenance.

 

There is of course a synergy between a battery and a fuel cell, all the current fuel cell designs have battery buffers. There is not a good fit between a small to mid sized PHEV and Fuel Cells.

Fuel cell vehicles require an additional hydrogen tank and hydrogen infrastructure. It is likely that there will be a recharging infrastructure before a hydrogen one, so from a practicality point of view it is a stretch. DBM has worked on batteries that can rapidly charge and I would expect this technology to be viable before fuel cells.

There really isn't an issue of the volt's configuration of a gas or e85 engine other than it being a rush job. Drop in the prius engine or the new mazda skyactive engine and less pollution and less fuel magically happens. There should of course be a choice of flex fuel. This is a much easier change than the change to fuel cells with their size, reliability, and cost problems.

For city buses and other large slow vehicles with set routes I see a future for fuel cells.

You also need to remember that the efficient fuel to make hydrogen is natural gas, which can power an engine directly or a power plant. If you make hydrogen from renewable electricity it takes much more power than running an ev with the electricity.

Ok, I imagined it, then rejected it.

 

I think the clear path to shutting down coal power plants is to increase the costs of cap and trade for pollutants and add a tough amount for mercury. Good for Colorado for starting to reduce its coal use. There are still plants that do not have good scrubbers and at least a major one in Nevada shut down because of the cap and trade and scrubber costs. According to ERCOT 95% of new plants in the last decade were NG. There are some coal plants coming on line in 2011 and 2012, but maybe we can make it so that for every new one built after that two are shut down.

I'm currious, what is the projected efficiency of Apache 3. Unlike many here, I don't think we can get rid of coal, but we can reduce it's use, and make the coal plants more efficient with lower pollution.

 

The current FCHV prototypes from Toyota and Hyundai fit in SUV size. Honda's system fit in a car (Clarity). They are not plugins, purely powered by H2. Therefore the FC stack are about 100kW.

As a range extender, 15-25 kW FC stack should be good. Remember, the price and the size of FC stack scale down well per kW but not the combustion engine. Combustion engine will increase vibration and noise as you downsize.

 

Let me help you with the first part of your misunderstanding. A hydrogen vehicle needs a larger fuel tank to go the same distance. If you add enough battery power to a clarity to make it a PFCHEV it gains weight and loses room, and it is becomes impractical from a packaging point of view. I am pessimistic of the price of said vehicle or any FCHV. If you go to SUV size at least you have room for both the batteries and the hydrogen tanks. You do still have a huge problem with refueling network and price. I do not expect a nationwide network for a long time if ever.

Why would 25kw be good? If anything IMHO the volt's generator has too little peak power for the vehicle. 25 kw could not cover hills at highway speeds, so you better keep a big buffer in that battery pack. A 1 L efficient 3 cylinder engine would work fine in a serial PHEV. The ford ecoboost 1L would work great on the volt, giving it more peak hp and more efficiency. A pure ev with larger pack should be practical and affordable before FCHV with or without plugs.

 

I'm surprised no one has brought up the results of the CMU study which clearly shows the PHEV40 is the best choice for lowering GHC's at distances of 21-40+ miles between charges.

 

This article compares a hypothetical PHEV30-40 series design (which no automaker will make) to a Prius like PSD enabled parallel PHEV10-20. The conclusions are therefore unremarkable (obviously, it's not efficient running a gas engine to charge a battery to drive an electric motor) and simply just an academic exercise.

 

tpfun, what's GHC?

 

I don't want to sidetrack but I will say this. Read up on Toyota FCHV-Adv and Hyundai Tucson FCEV. They both have comparable range as the gas versions.

Toyota, Hyundai and Kia are eyeing for a $50k FC car in 2015 years.

 

Pure EV with larger battery cannot refuel fast enough. It'll also require a breakthrough in battery for packaging and at reasonable cost / weight.

Combustion engine (rarely used) would still need engine maintenance mode (to lube cylinders) and fuel maintenance mode (to eliminate stale fuel) plus the following to worry about:

• Air filter
• Alternator
• Battery
• Clutch
• Fuel filter
• Fuel injectors/fuel pump
• Motor mounts
• Motor oil
• Muffler
• Oil filter
• O2 sensors
• Power steering fluid
• Radiator
• Radiator hose, lower
• Radiator hose, upper
• Serpentine belt
• Spark plugs
• Spark plug wires
• Starter
• Thermostat
• Timing belt
• Transmission adjustment (automatics)
• Transmission filter (automatics)
• Transmission fluid or oil
• Water pump

 

I did not say the range was worse, I said the volume needed in the tank for similar range was worse. Add a big enough battery pack to plug in and provide better acceleration and the compact to midsize car becomes impractical. Remember by the time one of these beasts comes out it will be competing with phev volt, ford c-max, the next gen phv prius, sonata as well as ev leaf, rav 4, focus, tesla s, plus more. If you want a range extender all those phev's will take you across the country. A fuel cell car will only take you as far as the hydrogen network.

A suv makes a more compelling choice if you are in one of those development zones. The extra cost looks smaller when it is on a more expensive vehicle and there is less choice. I like the competition and would like the market to be able to try the cars and decide. I think the clarity has already been tagged as a loser in this race. I hope that fc costs come down, but like the lower funding levels of today, and think they are mainly good for base stations to buffer electrical demand. One day they might be practical in some vehicles but at least for the next decade phev and bevs look like the green car winners.

I'm glad you now are on board that electric fuel is a good choice. I mean otherwise wouldn't you say the FC was being filled with dirty coal?

 

yep, a phev will still need to be serviced. I think every 2 years should do it once the makers have this stuff down. No need for timing belts I don't think. Clutches and most of the things on your list don't need services. All the cars should have there brakes inspected every so often, prius to ev.

On recharge time, I think you have it a little bassackward. I would expect a clarity to cost about the same as a Tesla S with 200 mile range. If you are driving accoss the country the tesla S can Get recharged. The clarity, well I hope you have a tow truck because you won't be filling the tank.
This is far from the topic of whether an EV or BEV is better than a HV from a fuel point of view. But yes PHEV or BEV should be better than an HV from a maintenance point of view. We don't know yet what the maintenance on FCV is, but I would suspect it is at a higher level.

 

Remember, the study was comparing PHEV40 to a non-hybrid, not to HEV (Prius). SageBrush was comparing PHEV35 (Volt with Coal electricity) to HEV (Prius).

This piece from the study sums it up:

The best choice of PHEV battery capacity depends critically on the distance that the vehicle will be driven between charges. Our results suggest that for urban driving conditions and frequent charges every 10 miles or less, a low-capacity PHEV sized with an AER of about 7 miles would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption, cost, and greenhouse gas emissions.

For moderate charging intervals of 20-100 miles, PHEVs release fewer GHGs, but HEVs are more cost-effective, the study found. Large-capacity PHEVs—sized for 40 or more miles of electric-only travel—are not cost-effective in any scenario, according to the findings, although they could minimize GHG emissions for some drivers and provide potential to shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers.​

Charge often and save money with smaller battery. This is why Toyota believes the smaller battery, the better.

 

So if we take that study and look at the battery cost, we find they are much higher than today's costs.

If we then take the assumption that we fill the car only with coal, sagebrush is correct. But if we actually look at the electricity that will fill these cars the volt will produce less CO2. We must question assumptions, and coal on an average or marginal level where these cars will be driven is much lower than 100%. This of course doesn't matter very much. Both the volt and prius are incredibly clean. The volt will use less gasoline which matters quite a bit. The volt and other phevs will appeal to drivers that would not buy a prius which also will also reduce pollution.

See I did that without using large red letters.

I will also bet that when toyota comes out with a bigger battery, all of those promoting small battery usage will change their minds ;-)

 

The report clearly stated "cost-effective". When the price of the battery drop, longer EV range would become more cost effective.

Toyota had been saying lithium was not ready because of the price. Volt came out and it turned out to be $41k expensive.

GHG emission is independent of cost. GHG depends on how the electricity is produced.

 

You have correctly tagged the TVA as a scammer for their so-called Green Power Switch program. The millions TVA has collected for this program do not go to any particular “green†project or program, only to TVA’s general power “mixâ€. And now they claim they are “short†by over $500,000 and in 2010 “subsidized†the program that much.

TVA is very reluctant to release financial data on the Green Power Switch program and I have resorted to the FOIA approach for information. This request has dragged on since last June.

For more about the TVA, see Norsworthy Opinion on the Internet To contact me directly, e-mail at [email protected]

Ernest Norsworthy

 

I can't wait that long for a FCV. Some time this millennium would be preferrable.

I think SOFC or MCFC designs are and will continue to prove their worth in stationary power generation scenarios. These things can chew up just about any hydrocarbon and do so fairly efficiently. PEM FCs seem a lot more fragile and expensive. I just don't see FCVs being in the game any time soon, really ever. there are so many downsides at this point. By the time (if ever) they get solved, batteries will be at least 10x better than they are now. FCVs are slowly turning into BEVs anyways. 10 years ago, FVCs were a lot like standard ICE vehicles. Very little if any batter capacity. These days they've turned into PHEVs. That should tell you something.

 

Toyota FCHV is always a hybrid using HSD. Hyundai's FCEV started out with ultracaps but the latest gen replaced them with lithium battery. Clarity FCX also use lithium. None of them have plugs. Maybe I missed it, which fuel cell vehicle has a plug?

For Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emission, H2 seem to be lowest.