The Green New Deal

[jimbob]

I like the idea of liquid or gas fueling compared to electrical charging. but as I said before hydrogen and fuel cells are still orders of magnitude more expensive. It is thevequivalent of buying a 30 thousand dollar car and then spending $35 a gallon for the fuel.

The problem is projecting what the cost will be after the development and engineering phases.

I'm not saying that fuel cells and hydrogen can't make that leap. But there are still some major obstacles. One which you haven't discussed is how you store that hydrogen in your vehicle. The problem is hydrogen being the lightest element is difficult to contain in its singular state. So, you can store it under very high pressure which requires very heavy tanks. Or you can cool to -253C it until it becomes a liquid.

There are indeed specific problems with hydrogen and its interactions with metal, however there are still programmes looking at the infrastructure required for it. Using water pipes and generating it onsite must be attractive.


ETA:
And for storing electricity generated by a mix of renewables, these problems are lessened, as then you have the option of a large, static plant.

 

[acbytesla]

There are indeed specific problems with hydrogen and its interactions with metal, however there are still programmes looking at the infrastructure required for it. Using water pipes and generating it onsite must be attractive.


ETA:
And for storing electricity generated by a mix of renewables, these problems are lessened, as then you have the option of a large, static plant.

I lost a lot of money a few years back investing in Ballard a manufacturer of fuel cells. It sounded very interesting to me at the time. But frankly, I feel I simply failed researching the technology. The problems are many. IMV, the problems utilizing hydrogen as a fuel source for vehicles is a long shot at best. But that doesn't mean you stop following the research.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are indeed specific problems with hydrogen and its interactions with metal, however there are still programmes looking at the infrastructure required for it.

Seems like methane would be a better fit in terms of infrastructure. You lose a bit of energy converting hydrogen gas into methane, but the benefits in terms of storage and transportation may be worth it.

 

[jimbob]

Seems like methane would be a better fit in terms of infrastructure. You lose a bit of energy converting hydrogen gas into methane, but the benefits in terms of storage and transportation may be worth it.

I was wondering about Methanol, but yes

 

[Ziggurat]

I was wondering about Methanol, but yes

Not a chemist, but my first instinct is that methanol should have even easier transport/storage than methane, but maybe lower conversion efficiency. No idea which has the overall advantage.

 

[lomiller]

Actually, very little of what your saying is technologically or economically true. It is only true because Nuclear power is being hamstrung by regulation and political obstacles.

I see that claim thrown around a lot, but never backed up with specific regulations that could be changed or how that could save money so I typically write it off as excuse making.

Spent fuel can be addressed by using it for power generation. We use less than 1 percent of the fissile material before throwing it out. And the beauty of using it in breeder reactors like the MSRE we can reduce the amount of spent fuel to a tiny fraction of what it is now.

Reprocessing can extend the amount of fuel by 2X-3X which isn't going to make that big a difference. This also carries proliferation risks because you can make bombs as well as fuel.

To really burn all that fuel you need to go to all fast reactor fuel cycles, but the reactors we have now, and all the reactors we are currently building don't qualify and would need to be replaced. That's assuming the breeder reactors pan out and are actually built. We don't even have large scale proof of concept test versions yet let alone production ready designs.

 

[acbytesla]

I see that claim thrown around a lot, but never backed up with specific regulations that could be changed or how that could save money so I typically write it off as excuse making.

Here's an article outlining some regulatory reform. But to give you a simple comparison. A basic review for a gas plant can be done in a week. Whereas a nuclear power plant is 3 years. Any size nuclear power plant requires a evacuation plan for 12 miles in every direction.http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2015/04/2...ulatory-reform/#sthash.P5Z79Fau.f3knCI8s.dpbs

Reprocessing can extend the amount of fuel by 2X-3X which isn't going to make that big a difference. This also carries proliferation risks because you can make bombs as well as fuel.

To really burn all that fuel you need to go to all fast reactor fuel cycles, but the reactors we have now, and all the reactors we are currently building don't qualify and would need to be replaced. That's assuming the breeder reactors pan out and are actually built. We don't even have large scale proof of concept test versions yet let alone production ready designs.

According to Kirk Sorensen, it should be possible to get more than 30x the energy out of spent fuel. Now, I'm not a nuclear engineer. And Sorensen may be exagerrating but the problem is that we don't really know because real technological improvement stopped in the 70s. Since then there has been small evolutionary improvements to the pressurized light water reactor. Let's see if molten salt and or the the thorium fuel cycle can make a better reactor. And BTW, thorium breeder reactors can run in the thermal spectrum.

 

[Belz...]

Here's an article outlining some regulatory reform.

Did you forget your link?

 

[acbytesla]

Did you forget your link?

Thanks. I just added it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The problems are many. IMV, the problems utilizing hydrogen as a fuel source for vehicles is a long shot at best.

The biggest problem is it perpetuates the idea that you have to burn a fuel to get propulsive energy. The only good argument for fuel is that batteries don't have the required energy density, but hydrogen doesn't either so why bother?

The reason is simply that most conventional car manufacturers are too scared to embrace new technology. Toyota introduced the Prius way back in 1997 (22 years ago!) but since then they've done practically nothing with it. Modern ICE cars have electrics all through them to get the best out of their smelly gas engines, but go all electric? Unthinkable!

Interest in electric cars DOES NOT mean that people are buying them...

Electric cars are very expensive and out of reach for most. I can't afford one.

I can't afford any type of new car, but I just got this 2012 Nissan Leaf today (my first electric, woohoo!) for US$6900, about the same price as an equivalent gas car. And with cheaper 'fuel' and virtually no maintenance costs, it will cost me less in the long run.

Now I just have to learn how to drive it...

 

[acbytesla]

The biggest problem is it perpetuates the idea that you have to burn a fuel to get propulsive energy. The only good argument for fuel is that batteries don't have the required energy density, but hydrogen doesn't either so why bother?

The reason is simply that most conventional car manufacturers are too scared to embrace new technology. Toyota introduced the Prius way back in 1997 (22 years ago!) but since then they've done practically nothing with it. Modern ICE cars have electrics all through them to get the best out of their smelly gas engines, but go all electric? Unthinkable!

I can't afford any type of new car, but I just got this 2012 Nissan Leaf today (my first electric, woohoo!) for US$6900, about the same price as an equivalent gas car. And with cheaper 'fuel' and virtually no maintenance costs, it will cost me less in the long run.

Now I just have to learn how to drive it...

Huh? Electric motors are very efficient. Two to three times as efficient as any ICE. But the problem with EVs is the energy storage. Whether it is batteries, supercapacitors or hydrogen being converted to electricity with fuel cells. All are still prohibitively expensive and not as green as people think they are.

And regardless of the energy storage medium, it doesn't address the source of the energy.

 

[Ziggurat]

The biggest problem is it perpetuates the idea that you have to burn a fuel to get propulsive energy. The only good argument for fuel is that batteries don't have the required energy density, but hydrogen doesn't either so why bother?

That depends on how you store it. Cryogenic liquid hydrogen is a non-starter for vehicles, compressed hydrogen isn't dense enough at realistic pressured. But physisorption in nanoporous materials might actually provide sufficient capacity. We aren't there yet, but we're not as far away as you might think.

 

[acbytesla]

That depends on how you store it. Cryogenic liquid hydrogen is a non-starter for vehicles, compressed hydrogen isn't dense enough at realistic pressured. But physisorption in nanoporous materials might actually provide sufficient capacity. We aren't there yet, but we're not as far away as you might think.

I agree with you Zig, that this form of hydrogen storage is the most promising. But how far away it is remains unknown.

 

[Belz...]

Modern ICE cars have electrics all through them to get the best out of their smelly gas engines, but go all electric? Unthinkable!

Well, there's quite a gap between the two.

 

[Leftus]

I can't afford any type of new car, but I just got this 2012 Nissan Leaf today (my first electric, woohoo!) for US$6900, about the same price as an equivalent gas car. And with cheaper 'fuel' and virtually no maintenance costs, it will cost me less in the long run.

Well, Nissan says the battery life is an expected 10 years. You are looking at a fairly expensive maintenance bill in the near future. It's what pushed me away from a used electric car when I was looking for a sedan.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, Nissan says the battery life is an expected 10 years. You are looking at a fairly expensive maintenance bill in the near future. It's what pushed me away from a used electric car when I was looking for a sedan.

It's all about the battery and the numbe of cycles. Also, the climate can greatly affect the longevity.

If you own a 2011 to 2015 Nissan LEAF, replacing the battery will cost you exactly $5,499, plus installation, which the company estimates will take about 3 hours. Owners of 2011 and 2012 cars must also add $225 for a special adapter kit to retrofit the new battery to their cars.Oct 4, 2017
Nissan LEAF Replacement Battery Cost = $5,499 | CleanTechnica

However the prices can be even higher than this. It depends on how you deal with it.

Owners can also get new packs: 650,000 yen ($6,200 USD) for 24 kWh; 800,000 yen ($7,600 USD) for 30 kWh; and 820,000 yen ($7,800 USD) for 40 kWh.

But the new program for refabricated ones will cost only 300,000 yen ($2,850 USD).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's all about the battery and the numbe of cycles. Also, the climate can greatly affect the longevity.

The low mileage and temperate climate my Leaf was used in suggests the battery will last a lot longer than 10 years (currently showing 10 'bars' fully charged, while some others of the same age are only 6). And when it does need replacement I am betting repacking will cost a lot less than a new one - which itself will probably be much cheaper by then.

The last repair bill on my old car was $950. I can't afford more bills like that. At 23 years old and starting to show structural rust it needed to be replaced soon. Factor in several thousand dollars in fuel costs and regular maintenance, and the Leaf was starting to look attractive even with possible battery issues.

To be honest, justifying the purchase was hard for me. I am an old guy who is famously stingy and reluctant to change. It took a long time for me to admit that keeping my old gas guzzler until it fell to bits wasn't the best idea. But I only have 3 years to go before retirement, health is starting to fail and the chances of still being mobile (or even alive) in 20 years time is not great. There's actually a pretty good chance the car outlives me...

Day two in my electric car life, and hoping to pluck up enough courage to drive on the open road. Never had an automatic before, or A/C, electric windows, touch screen, self locking doors etc. This old guy needs to get into the 21st century!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But physisorption in nanoporous materials might actually provide sufficient capacity. We aren't there yet, but we're not as far away as you might think.

Yes, yes, oh yes please! We desperately something to put in our vehicles that we can pretend is gas. Even though it only 'might' be viable and isn't as far away as we 'might' think (sooner, later, never?).

Meanwhile, in the real world...

The Hydrogen Economy Will Be Highly Unlikely

In California, the hydrogen economy movement has received support, in the form of subsidies and demonstration projects, from the state government and environmental groups, often supported and financed by prominent Hollywood actors.

At present, about 95% of the H2 production is by the steam reforming process using fossil fuels as feedstock, mostly low-cost natural gas. This process emits CO2.

Lay people are being led to believe the hydrogen economy, i.e., producing H2 by electrolysis from near-CO2-free sources, such as hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear energy, will be a reality in the near future... Replacing gasoline with hydrogen, just for light duty vehicles, would require an additional H2 production of about (187.5 million x 365)/19958 = 3.43 times existing production; it is highly unlikely this will happen.

Replacing Gasoline With Electricity For Light Duty Vehicles... with hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear energy would require enormous investments, but much less than using electrolytic H2.

Conclusion: Battery-powered EVs likely will be the dominant mode for light/medium duty vehicles, and for mass transit busses, delivery vehicles, like UPS, etc., in the future. China is building multi-billion dollar battery plants, similar to Tesla’s. H2-FCVs likely will be suitable in certain areas with favorable conditions, such as low-cost electricity.

 

[acbytesla]

The low mileage and temperate climate my Leaf was used in suggests the battery will last a lot longer than 10 years (currently showing 10 'bars' fully charged, while some others of the same age are only 6). And when it does need replacement I am betting repacking will cost a lot less than a new one - which itself will probably be much cheaper by then.

The last repair bill on my old car was $950. I can't afford more bills like that. At 23 years old and starting to show structural rust it needed to be replaced soon. Factor in several thousand dollars in fuel costs and regular maintenance, and the Leaf was starting to look attractive even with possible battery issues.

To be honest, justifying the purchase was hard for me. I am an old guy who is famously stingy and reluctant to change. It took a long time for me to admit that keeping my old gas guzzler until it fell to bits wasn't the best idea. But I only have 3 years to go before retirement, health is starting to fail and the chances of still being mobile (or even alive) in 20 years time is not great. There's actually a pretty good chance the car outlives me...

Day two in my electric car life, and hoping to pluck up enough courage to drive on the open road. Never had an automatic before, or A/C, electric windows, touch screen, self locking doors etc. This old guy needs to get into the 21st century!

I'm not trying to knock your purchase. It sound like you got a good one. I hope it serves you well for many years.

I just know how expensive batteries are. I travel and camp a lot. I have solar on my RV. I just switched from 4 sealed lead acid 6 volt batteries costing about $600 to 2ea 100ah 12 volt lithium batteries that cost more than $2,200. In theory the SLAs can hold twice the charge of my new expensive lithium batteries. But in reality that extra charge is not usable as you never wanted to let them drain any more than 50% or they don't last very long. Even if you take care of them they last at most about 400 cycles. In contrast you can discharge a lithium battery 5000 times and you can discharge them 80 to 90 percent without degradation. They also charge faster and the voltage is steady.

Take care of your batteries and they will take care of you. Keep your vehicle charged. Don't let it run down. Try to keep it FULLY charged as much as you can. Trust me on this.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, yes, oh yes please! We desperately something to put in our vehicles that we can pretend is gas. Even though it only 'might' be viable and isn't as far away as we 'might' think (sooner, later, never?).

Meanwhile, in the real world...

The Hydrogen Economy Will Be Highly Unlikely

I think it's very possible that in the future we will fill up ICEs with a carbon neutral fuel created through electrical power. But guessing the future is not easy.