Why 'Fool' Cells.... WHY?

[Yggdrasill]

So I stumbled on this article which, while incredibly well written has some questionable numbers in it. Specifically it makes references to Tesla Model S having an actual mpg in terms of oil burned that is barely above the ICE average. Basically I was hoping one of the incredibly intelligent engineering types could do a takedown of it if it doesn't pass muster. Also the whole premise is that he's using a 150 $ solar panel and a 12v battery for his energy needs... It smells of viral advertising for Soylent the food substitute.

"Without sustainable power production electric cars are not that great. Charging an 85kWh Tesla would still burn the equivalent of 10 gallons of oil at the power plant.[a] With a range of 265 miles the Tesla Model S really uses 26.5 mpg, barely over the average american fuel economy of 23.6 mpg."


http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1331

From footnote [a] you can see that he's assuming 100% of the electricity is sourced from burning petroleum at the power plant. The reality is closer to 1%. (Also, he's assuming unrealistically low efficiency numbers in the electricity generation.) Electricity in the US comes from nuclear, solar, wind, other renewables, hydro, natural gas and coal. Only the last one of these are more dirty than burning oil at the power plant.

Using grid average electricity, a Model S will be closer to 70 MPG in terms of CO2 emissions. Much better than that if you install solar panels on your roof.

 

[nwdiver]

So I stumbled on this article which, while incredibly well written has some questionable numbers in it. Specifically it makes references to Tesla Model S having an actual mpg in terms of oil burned that is barely above the ICE average. Basically I was hoping one of the incredibly intelligent engineering types could do a takedown of it if it doesn't pass muster. Also the whole premise is that he's using a 150 $ solar panel and a 12v battery for his energy needs... It smells of viral advertising for Soylent the food substitute.

"Without sustainable power production electric cars are not that great. Charging an 85kWh Tesla would still burn the equivalent of 10 gallons of oil at the power plant.[a] With a range of 265 miles the Tesla Model S really uses 26.5 mpg, barely over the average american fuel economy of 23.6 mpg."


http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1331

That article struck me as pro-solar... not anti-EV; Yeah... if you burned oil to power a Tesla you would get ~24mpg... that's why solar is great and coal, oil and gas are more than just a little absurd.

1 gal of gasoline is ~34kWh... if you for some weird reason wanted to turn gasoline into electricity you'd be lucky to get ~10kWh.

 

[tkizzy]

That article struck me as pro-solar... not anti-EV; Yeah... if you burned oil to power a Tesla you would get ~24mpg... that's why... solar.

24 mpg in terms of oil at a power plant or the equivalent amount of already-refined oil in the form of petrol (less than 24)? There has to be efficiency loss when refining oil into petrol right? Are ICE's more efficient at burning petrol than power plants are at burning oil? what about in terms of oil before it was refined into petrol? Assuming power plants don't run on petrol... thanks for the info folks.

 

[Yggdrasill]

It's a bit worse than that. A Mirai has a EPA certified range of 312 miles. A Prius has a EPA range of about 595 miles, a Camry about 476 miles. So one tanker like the one in the picture has enough hydrogen for a Mirai to travel 43,680 miles, while a 9000 gallon tanker has enough gas for a Prius to travel 450,000 miles and a Camry to travel 252,000 miles. Thus, you need shipments of fuel 6-10 times as often. (In Europe at least, the rule will be closer to ten times as often, given that we use more efficient vehicles and more diesel.)

Also, shipments of hydrogen as large as the truck pictured is currently not legal in Europe. And there should be a real discussion about whether we want these bombs on our roads. 700 kg of hydrogen detonating will destroy everything in a 100 meter radius, probably blow out all windows ina 1000 meter radius, and it's obvious the container hasn't been engineered to withstand a collision, unlike the tanks in the Mirai and other FCVs.

Note though that I'm not saying hydrogen is impossible to make safe, you just need rules. Some suggestions:

1. Filling stations storing compressed hydrogen should be built at least 500 meters away from residential zones, schools, hospitals, etc.
2. Filling stations storing compressed hydrogen should have a permimiter at least 20 meters away from the storage tanks with 3 meter high sand embankments.
3. Preferably, hydrogen should be produced at the filling station, from electricity, CNG, LPG or similar.
4. Shipments of hydrogen should preferably be done in it's cryogenic state. Cooled to -255C, liquid hydrogen is quite hard to detonate, just like gasoline, the hydrogen needs to evaporate before mixing with air, so you're likely to get a slow burnoff in the event of an accident.
5. Shipments of compressed hydrogen should be performed in tanks storing no more than 50 kg, and there should be mandatory crash testing of said tanks. (Multiple tanks OK.)

 

[nwdiver]

24 mpg in terms of oil at a power plant or the equivalent amount of already-refined oil in the form of petrol (less than 24)? There has to be efficiency loss when refining oil into petrol right? Are ICE's more efficient at burning petrol than power plants are at burning oil? what about in terms of oil before it was refined into petrol? Assuming power plants don't run on petrol... thanks for the info folks.

It's all about conversions... more conversions = more losses

(Oil => Gasoline => Wheels) Is generally more efficient than (Oil => AC Electricity => DC Electricity => Wheels)

This is why the Volt Drivetrain isn't simply a generator and a motor... it's more efficient for the ICE to drive the wheels directly than to use ICE to generate electricity to drive a motor.

The whole concept is irrelevant... the simple moral of the story is (Use Solar/wind for electricity... not oil)

 

[richkae]

It's all about conversions... more conversions = more losses

(Oil => Gasoline => Wheels) Is generally more efficient than (Oil => AC Electricity => DC Electricity => Wheels)

This is why the Volt Drivetrain isn't simply a generator and a motor... it's more efficient for the ICE to drive the wheels directly than to use ICE to generate electricity to drive a motor.

The whole concept is irrelevant... the simple moral of the story is (Use Solar/wind for electricity... not oil)

I think that oversimplified math is wrong.
You are better off to turn oil directly into electricity - even with the extra steps, because a big powerplant can be much more efficient than a small ICE.

Burning gasoline has nothing to do with efficiency, it has to do with convenience.

It is also always forgotten that when you convert oil into gasoline, you get half gasoline and half other stuff.
The gasoline is the "best" stuff, the most energy dense stuff that is convenient to store and burn.
The other stuff includes the dirtiest stuff that is better left in the ground. We wouldn't burn it/leave it on the ground to boil off into the air if we didn't need gasoline.
Some of that other stuff is burned/used/wasted in ways that are even less efficient than burning in a big efficient powerplant or a small efficient ICE, and isn't captured in the "oil => gasoline => wheels" equation.

 

[richkae]

That article struck me as pro-solar... not anti-EV; Yeah... if you burned oil to power a Tesla you would get ~24mpg... that's why solar is great and coal, oil and gas are more than just a little absurd.

1 gal of gasoline is ~34kWh... if you for some weird reason wanted to turn gasoline into electricity you'd be lucky to get ~10kWh.

Even the worst case of turning crude oil directly into electricity at the average 2013 combined cycle powerplant in the US can net you 13.9 kWh. ( SAS Output )
Check my math: 5800000btu per barrel / 42 gallons per barrel = 138000 btu. 138000 btu / 9937 = 13.9 kwh
If you turn natural gas into electricity in a best in breed combined cycle powerplant ( Efficiency Record of Combined Cycle Power Plant - Siemens Global Website ) you can get 60% efficiency.
The best case number for gasoline in a best of breed combined cycle powerplant ( if you were to build one ) has to be somewhere between 14 and 20, but I would think closer to 20 than 14.

If we wanted to turn crude oil or gasoline into electricity, we could, and using that to drive EVs would be more efficient than driving ICE cars.

 

[scaesare]

Really? Digging up almost every street in living areas to lay cable is going to be cheaper than equipping a certain percentage of gas stations with hydrogen?

You really don't have to dig up streets to lay cable. You use one of these:

The need to upgrade infrastructure for things like fiber optics and data cable, especially in residential areas, has led to a lot of clever advancements.

When Verizon laid fiber in my neighborhood, there was not a single trench to be seen. Just a Horizontal Boring Machine every so often. It was pretty painless and relatively quick.

I'd expect it indeed would be significantly cheaper to (and safer) to do this than build out an entire hydrogen infrastructure (and it's attendant safety mechanisms)...

 

[Johan]

Don't feed the Spidey troll. He's obviously yanking our chains. To even suggest that building out EV charging infrastructure would be more expensive than building out hydrogen refueling infrastructure (for a similar number of cars) shows that you are either 1) completely clueless or 2) a troll. Neither is worth debating.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Don't feed the Spidey troll. He's obviously yanking our chains. To even suggest that building out EV charging infrastructure would be more expensive than building out hydrogen refueling infrastructure (for a similar number of cars) shows that you are either 1) completely clueless or 2) a troll. Neither is worth debating.

I disagree that clueless people aren't worth debating. You might just be able to see new sides of the matter, and they might learn something.

Assuming one filling station per 1000 cars and a cost of 4 million USD per filling station, that's a cost of 4000 USD/car. Assuming it depreciates over 10 years, that's 400 USD/year/car. It's not that extreme, and it's probably somewhere in the same area as the cost of ubiquitous charging everywhere and tens of thousands of supercharger stations.

The big issue with the infrastructure is getting from a few stations to many stations. I wouldn't consider buying an FCV until at least Norway is covered, with about 15 filling stations. And one of those would need to be within 5 km of my house or work. There are no plans to roll out anywhere near that number of filling stations before 2020. And they probably won't ever be rolled out, as after 2017, long range cheap-ish BEVs will make FCVs seem absolutely ridiculous.

 

[richkae]

It's a bit worse than that. A Mirai has a EPA certified range of 312 miles. A Prius has a EPA range of about 595 miles, a Camry about 476 miles. So one tanker like the one in the picture has enough hydrogen for a Mirai to travel 43,680 miles, while a 9000 gallon tanker has enough gas for a Prius to travel 450,000 miles and a Camry to travel 252,000 miles. Thus, you need shipments of fuel 6-10 times as often. (In Europe at least, the rule will be closer to ten times as often, given that we use more efficient vehicles and more diesel.)

Also, shipments of hydrogen as large as the truck pictured is currently not legal in Europe. And there should be a real discussion about whether we want these bombs on our roads. 700 kg of hydrogen detonating will destroy everything in a 100 meter radius, probably blow out all windows ina 1000 meter radius, and it's obvious the container hasn't been engineered to withstand a collision, unlike the tanks in the Mirai and other FCVs.

Thanks for the corrections. You are right, I should have looked at miles served, not vehicles served.

 

[eloder]

I think the easiest way to end the FCV debate would be to get anyone unsure of the issue, or heavily prefering FCV, to drive a Model S and a Mirai around for a month. No free hydrogen on the Mirai, of course. I'd be interested to see how many people would still choose the Mirai at the end of such an experiment. (If costs are a concern, let's just assume the Model S is a pre-owned 60 kwh model so it's equal!)

 

[Gerardf]

I disagree that clueless people aren't worth debating. You might just be able to see new sides of the matter, and they might learn something.

Assuming one filling station per 1000 cars and a cost of 4 million USD per filling station, that's a cost of 4000 USD/car. Assuming it depreciates over 10 years, that's 400 USD/year/car. It's not that extreme, and it's probably somewhere in the same area as the cost of ubiquitous charging everywhere and tens of thousands of supercharger stations.

The big issue with the infrastructure is getting from a few stations to many stations. I wouldn't consider buying an FCV until at least Norway is covered, with about 15 filling stations. And one of those would need to be within 5 km of my house or work. There are no plans to roll out anywhere near that number of filling stations before 2020. And they probably won't ever be rolled out, as after 2017, long range cheap-ish BEVs will make FCVs seem absolutely ridiculous.

Here are some real-life experiences with FC filling stations.

Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Owner's Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/513010068843714/


Actually after reading there for a bit I started to feel sad for these owners. These early adopters mean well for environment, but often cannot even use their FCEV for several month now they have chosen to lease an FCEV instead of a BEV.

FC stations unexpectedly closed, very much less stations than promised, often no H2 at active stations, no filling up for many hours after some cars used the stations, often only partial fill-up's. All this exactly as was predicted by many here on this forum, and for sure the management of the FCEV car manufacturers must have know very well they were overpromising. They however do not seem to feel responsible for the infrastructure.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

From footnote [a] you can see that he's assuming 100% of the electricity is sourced from burning petroleum at the power plant. The reality is closer to 1%. (Also, he's assuming unrealistically low efficiency numbers in the electricity generation.) Electricity in the US comes from nuclear, solar, wind, other renewables, hydro, natural gas and coal. Only the last one of these are more dirty than burning oil at the power plant.

Using grid average electricity, a Model S will be closer to 70 MPG in terms of CO2 emissions. Much better than that if you install solar panels on your roof.

It must be nice living in a country where the best people can do is "If everybody drove electric cars we might have to burn some (natural) gas to make it. Maybe."

 

[Johan]

It must be nice living in a country where the best people can do is "If everybody drove electric cars we might have to burn some (natural) gas to make it. Maybe."

Nah we just dam up one more fjord

 

[beeeerock]

Nah we just dam up one more fjord

For some reason, when I read that I got a mental image of someone jamming a potato up the exhaust pipe of a Fjord Taurus or Fjord F-150... :biggrin:

 

[Johan]

For some reason, when I read that I got a mental image of someone jamming a potato up the exhaust pipe of a Fjord Taurus or Fjord F-150... :biggrin:

That's one way to reduce CO2 emissions. Think global - act local.

 

[ThosEM]

There are other motives:
* deliver a zero emission vehicle, at least where it is driven (in the same way that EVs have zero emission where driven, but some emissions come from the power plants).
* avoid levying a large new load on the electric grid (especially important to Japan, which lost a significant chunk of nuclear capability at Fukushima).

I'm well aware of the downsides of FCEVs, but I'm trying to see an upside here.

 

[stopcrazypp]

* avoid levying a large new load on the electric grid (especially important to Japan, which lost a significant chunk of nuclear capability at Fukushima).

I'm pretty sure building new powerplants + charging stations + EVs will be much cheaper than building hydrogen infrastructure + FCVs. Plus they will need something to fill in for the lost capacity anyways just to handle normal electricity demand. So I'm not sure that is a valid argument. What is somewhat related is the use of home natural gas based fuel cells (currently in use in Japan), but that's not the same as talking about FCVs.

The way the hydrogen promoters put it is #2 in the poll. It allows fueling speeds similar to gasoline cars and is a ZEV. None of the upstream stuff about hydrogen is positive (they readily admit the infrastructure is extremely expensive and that hydrogen will be more expensive than gasoline for the foreseeable future).

 

[jerry33]

'm well aware of the downsides of FCEVs, but I'm trying to see an upside here.

The upsides are simple:

1. You get to purchase energy from the same people that you buy gas from.

2. The dealers get the same amount of service revenue, or maybe more depending upon how often the high pressure canister requires inspection by someone who is licensed to work on high pressure containers.