BMW Pilot iX5 EV No Batteries, Recharges/H2 Fuels in less than 4 minutes

[Torrid]

For hydrogen:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/toyota-strategy-on-evs-ice-h2.360450/page-2#post-6253312
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/why-not-more-hybrids.359592/page-12#post-6298014
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...d-hydrogen-is-not-going-to-be-a-thing.362442/

Germaine quote:


For Amonia:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/ammonia-is-the-solution.355574/page-2#post-6145044

Not sure what I'm gaining out of this as I really haven't been a proponent of hydrogen in the first place, but the efficiency number is even a bit lower than I remember seeing quoted before, which I want to say was 43%. There's a reason why everyone isn't running to this solution.

I'm amazed ammonia is being used as a fuel source directly in any example. Vehicles running around with that in the tank in an accident could be a bigger disaster than anything else a vehicle can run on. It only takes one tank car of anhydrous ammonia on a train to get it labeled as an alert train. Anything that falls under TIH(Toxic Inhalation Hazard) accounts for this. It takes 20 loaded hazardous(for sake of putting a label on it, ethanol) of any other type to be labeled as a key train and that's still technically considered lower than an alert train. With enough anhydrous in close enough proximity it can be instant death.

 

[OVERKILL]

Not sure what I'm gaining out of this as I really haven't been a proponent of hydrogen in the first place, but the efficiency number is even a bit lower than I remember seeing quoted before, which I want to say was 43%. There's a reason why everyone isn't running to this solution.

I'm amazed ammonia is being used as a fuel source directly in any example. Vehicles running around with that in the tank in an accident could be a bigger disaster than anything else a vehicle can run on. It only takes one tank car of anhydrous ammonia on a train to get it labeled as an alert train. Anything that falls under TIH(Toxic Inhalation Hazard) accounts for this. It takes 20 loaded hazardous(for sake of putting a label on it, ethanol) of any other type to be labeled as a key train and that's still technically considered lower than an alert train. With enough anhydrous in close enough proximity it can be instant death.

Wasn't saying you were a proponent of hydrogen, you were making a point about knowing where the hydrogen came from, this explains it.

Yes, it's a staggering stack of losses.

 

[kschachn]

Wasn't saying you were a proponent of hydrogen, you were making a point about knowing where the hydrogen came from, this explains it.

Yes, it's a staggering stack of losses.

Ammonia synthesis is pretty bad too.

 

[Torrid]

Wasn't saying you were a proponent of hydrogen, you were making a point about knowing where the hydrogen came from, this explains it.

Yes, it's a staggering stack of losses.

Thank you, I appreciate you posting it.

Ammonia synthesis is pretty bad too.

Well if it's going to be used for power, I would agree. Its applications in other ways, particularly farming is a much better use of it.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

We're shutting down the ones we have. People are afraid of the possibility of a Chernobyl incident. Obviously they're the most expensive to build.

The US has approx 90 nuclear plants in operation and that fleet supplies only around 20 percent of total energy demand in the US. If you want to expand the fleet to 80 percent of today's demand you'll need to add 180 new reactors while maintaining/replacing what is already standing. These plants cost approx $6B-$9B per 1,100 MW and around 10 years to reach operational status. Conversely Nat Gas powerplants are around $600M for same capacity and built in 2 years.

Mind you this is just the cost and doesn't include the waste management and public relations hurdles.

The irony about all his is that proponents of nuclear who are anti-ev claim the BEV crowd sticks their head in the sand by relying on fantasy thinking in terms of cost, viability, environmental impact yet do not hold themselves to the same standards when it comes to these very same issues with regards to the viability of a transition to nuclear.

 

[alarmguy]

The US has approx 90 nuclear plants in operation and that fleet supplies only around 20 percent of total energy demand in the US. If you want to expand the fleet to 80 percent of today's demand you'll need to add 180 new reactors while maintaining/replacing what is already standing. These plants cost approx $6B-$9B per 1,100 MW and around 10 years to reach operational status. Conversely Nat Gas powerplants are around $600M for same capacity and built in 2 years.

Mind you this is just the cost and doesn't include the waste management and public relations hurdles.

The irony about all his is that proponents of nuclear who are anti-ev claim the BEV crowd sticks their head in the sand by relying on fantasy thinking in terms of cost, viability, environmental impact yet do not hold themselves to the same standards when it comes to these very same issues with regards to the viability of a transition to nuclear.

The reason Nuclear is the only realistic option in my head is the anti-carbon movement. Personally I could care less about carbon emissions. But somehow well, I guess that is the reason for the EV movement too. Carbon Emissions. So the cat is out of the bag and wont be able to be tucked away.
Windmills, Solar and Nuclear are carbon free. It's an agenda and it's working among the masses. After all, we used to burn witches too, right?
We even had a multi billion dollar nuclear waste facility almost complete and ready to run, built with your tax dollars, but the agenda shut it down. Now the stuff is still scattered all over the country which I think was the plan.

I actually do not know of one person who is Anti-EV and I think that is a mistaken impression and still to this day do not know why people think that..
Unless the rare person that thinks everyone should drive the same car as they do but that has been around for the last 2 decades in forums.

 

[OVERKILL]

The US has approx 90 nuclear plants in operation and that fleet supplies only around 20 percent of total energy demand in the US. If you want to expand the fleet to 80 percent of today's demand you'll need to add 180 new reactors while maintaining/replacing what is already standing.

According to the EIA, the US consumed 4,120TWh in 2021 and 19% of that was produced by nuclear, 778TWh. The count of active plants is 93. that's 8.366TWh per plant or an average plant (not unit) size of 955MWe.

For 80% of US power to be produced by nuclear (3,296TWh - 778TWh, 2,518TWh) using AP1000's (the 1,100MWe units) you'd need 281 new units constructed, or 140 2-unit plants.

Sounds nutty right?

Thing is, the Messmer plan in France constructed around 70 reactors in 20 years, and France doesn't have close to the GDP of the US.

Like Ontario, France built sites with a large number of units and sites were parallel builds.

These plants cost approx $6B-$9B per 1,100 MW and around 10 years to reach operational status. Conversely Nat Gas powerplants are around $600M for same capacity and built in 2 years.

That's why you do parallel builds. However, historically, nuke new build time is ~6-7 years, it's only more recently that regulation and red tape have dragged that out. China is 4-6 years. Yes, CAPEX is a huge hurdle. Even if we pretend that we could get the price down to the original sticker of ~$7 billion/unit, that's $1.97 trillion, or roughly the same as the annual US defence budget. Spread over a 20-year build, that's $98 billion/year.

Mind you this is just the cost and doesn't include the waste management and public relations hurdles.

Waste management cost is typically obtained as part of the plant's OPEX; part of the per kWh rate the plant receives. PR hurdles are real, though that's been improving as of late, but Vogtle has definitely not helped on that front.

The irony about all his is that proponents of nuclear who are anti-ev claim the BEV crowd sticks their head in the sand by relying on fantasy thinking in terms of cost, viability, environmental impact yet do not hold themselves to the same standards when it comes to these very same issues with regards to the viability of a transition to nuclear.

I don't get the anti-BEV angle. I mean, there are some challenges with respect to behaviour, for charging and range, but there are a pile of BEV's on the market now in a variety of classes and by and large, people like them. This is a market that's much, MUCH further along than the FCEV market and has nowhere near the adoption challenges.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

According to the EIA, the US consumed 4,120TWh in 2021 and 19% of that was produced by nuclear, 778TWh. The count of active plants is 93. that's 8.366TWh per plant or an average plant (not unit) size of 955MWe.

For 80% of US power to be produced by nuclear (3,296TWh - 778TWh, 2,518TWh) using AP1000's (the 1,100MWe units) you'd need 281 new units constructed, or 140 2-unit plants.

Sounds nutty right?

Thing is, the Messmer plan in France constructed around 70 reactors in 20 years, and France doesn't have close to the GDP of the US.

Like Ontario, France built sites with a large number of units and sites were parallel builds.

That's why you do parallel builds. However, historically, nuke new build time is ~6-7 years, it's only more recently that regulation and red tape have dragged that out. China is 4-6 years. Yes, CAPEX is a huge hurdle. Even if we pretend that we could get the price down to the original sticker of ~$7 billion/unit, that's $1.97 trillion, or roughly the same as the annual US defence budget. Spread over a 20-year build, that's $98 billion/year.

Waste management cost is typically obtained as part of the plant's OPEX; part of the per kWh rate the plant receives. PR hurdles are real, though that's been improving as of late, but Vogtle has definitely not helped on that front.

I don't get the anti-BEV angle. I mean, there are some challenges with respect to behaviour, for charging and range, but there are a pile of BEV's on the market now in a variety of classes and by and large, people like them. This is a market that's much, MUCH further along than the FCEV market and has nowhere near the adoption challenges.

Interestingly the French are trying to reduce their reliance on nuclear. In any case I have no idea how they financed the construction of their 70 or so units but the standards of living in France vs the US are vastly different. Everything is smaller in France. The French per capita electric consumption is approx 50 percent of what it is in the United States.

One other thing is that the avg price of power in the France is 21 cents kWh vs 13 cents kWh in the US. Ratepayers in southern and midwestern states would be under serious price shocks.

Side note: With regards to waste management the US would have to follow the French model and reprocess fuel. I'm assuming it would be transported via rail to one or two location which I think is how it's done in France. NIMBY's would have a field day out of fear of train derailments.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

The reason Nuclear is the only realistic option in my head is the anti-carbon movement. Personally I could care less about carbon emissions. But somehow well, I guess that is the reason for the EV movement too. Carbon Emissions. So the cat is out of the bag and wont be able to be tucked away.
Windmills, Solar and Nuclear are carbon free. It's an agenda and it's working among the masses. After all, we used to burn witches too, right?
We even had a multi billion dollar nuclear waste facility almost complete and ready to run, built with your tax dollars, but the agenda shut it down. Now the stuff is still scattered all over the country which I think was the plan.

I actually do not know of one person who is Anti-EV and I think that is a mistaken impression and still to this day do not know why people think that..
Unless the rare person that thinks everyone should drive the same car as they do but that has been around for the last 2 decades in forums.

Well you either believe in carbon and its contribution AGW or not. If you don't believe it then ya it's an agenda.

 

[alarmguy]

Well you either believe in carbon and its contribution AGW or not. If you don't believe it then ya it's an agenda.

Yes and I am reading your previous post on how people would be in shock over rate increases if nuclear power was instituted. Well, that is the agenda isnt it? Carbon Emissions?
It's not a matter if one believes it. It's a matter of being forced into it.
Does the public think it's going to be cheap being forced to buy energy from one source (their electric utility) and no longer have a choice? Since when does not having a choice work out good for the population?

This is what Americans are voting for, several states are already outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles by 2035. Im telling you that will never happen once the out to lunch public realizes they no longer will have any choice in the energy they purchase as everything will only be electric. No more gasoline, NG, CNG, Oil, Diesel ect.

BTW ... GA has two reactors running for some time, two more coming on line.
South Carolina from what I read is 60% nuclear and this is my energy bill from the most expensive supplier in the state. I used to be part of a co-op and it was cheaper, now in an apartment until new house is finished and have to buy electric from Dominion .

Anyway in my state of SC that from what I read is 60% nuclear we have some pretty low cost rates and so does GA.
This was my current bill last bill paid.

My old residence on Long Island NY was .20 cents kWh 15 years ago when I left and they had no nuclear power because of their own foolish decisions to close down a completely built new Nuclear Power Plant which already started its low power testing. The cost 5 billion dollars in the 70/80s another one billion plus to decommission it before it ever produced commercial power. All because after building it the state said the evacuation zone wasnt feasible.

 

[Astro14]

I'm not sure where this is trying to go but I don't know how hydrogen itself is sourced. I do know ammonia is a process of combining nitrogen and hydrogen. It's a common product that my job has me transporting so that's the only reason why I'm aware of it. I'm sure there's some other crazy process to get the hydrogen itself. Doing a bit of reading I see ammonia occurs naturally too, but from what I can see not in the amounts needed for as easy as they make the synthesized ammonia. I'm not a scientist, but I have plenty of training from the hazard side of things because by default I end up being a first responder before the real first responders arrive.

Yes, it’s a product. You’re transporting it.

Yes, it’s very energy intensive to create.

It’s not made for free, it’s not something you mine.

It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create it, so ammonia isn’t a solution to “where can we get hydrogen”.

That’s the point.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Yes and I am reading your previous post on how people would be in shock over rate increases if nuclear power was instituted. Well, that is the agenda isnt it? Carbon Emissions?
It's not a matter if one believes it. It's a matter of being forced into it.
Does the public think it's going to be cheap being forced to buy energy from one source (their electric utility) and no longer have a choice? Since when does not having a choice work out good for the population?

This is what Americans are voting for, several states are already outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles by 2035. Im telling you that will never happen once the out to lunch public realizes they no longer will have any choice in the energy they purchase as everything will only be electric. No more gasoline, NG, CNG, Oil, Diesel ect.

BTW ... GA has two reactors running for some time, two more coming on line.
South Carolina from what I read is 60% nuclear and this is my energy bill from the most expensive supplier in the state. I used to be part of a co-op and it was cheaper, now in an apartment until new house is finished and have to buy electric from Dominion .

Anyway in my state of SC that from what I read is 60% nuclear we have some pretty low cost rates and so does GA.
This was my current bill last bill paid.
View attachment 142685
My old residence on Long Island NY was .20 cents kWh 15 years ago when I left and they had no nuclear power because of their own foolish decisions to close down a completely built new Nuclear Power Plant which already started its low power testing. The cost 5 billion dollars in the 70/80s another one billion plus to decommission it before it ever produced commercial power. All because after building it the state said the evacuation zone wasnt feasible.

It took your use of the word "agenda" to mean "ulterior motive".

Ya know alot of people have been forced into a lot of things over the decades. Whether it be rationing of foodstuff, production quotas, emissions systems, less harmful HFC's, more energy efficient residential/commercial construction, seatbelts, safety glass, airbags. The list goes on.

In any case nothing is going to get banned by 2035 except for maybe non-hybrid ICE and it doesn't matter what the public votes for because the real decision is made at the inflection point were policy is implemented. California just released their new power plan. It's high on promises and ideas but weak in hard numbers.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/pro...ange-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents

 

[alarmguy]

It took your use of the word "agenda" to mean "ulterior motive".

Ya know alot of people have been forced into a lot of things over the decades. Whether it be rationing of foodstuff, production quotas, emissions systems, less harmful HFC's, more energy efficient residential/commercial construction, seatbelts, safety glass, airbags. The list goes on.

In any case nothing is going to get banned by 2035 except for maybe non-hybrid ICE and it doesn't matter what the public votes for because the real decision is made at the inflection point were policy is implemented. California just released their new power plan. It's high on promises and ideas but weak in hard numbers.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/pro...ange-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents

Well, the ban is already in place for 2035. The sales of ICE vehicles in CA (and I think others) but it will never happen as the public learns what that means and its unattainable anyway.
I disagree on your example of being forced into something.

 

[JavierH19]

Only problem with hydrogen is the insane dollar cost per mile.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Well, the ban is already in place for 2035. The sales of ICE vehicles in CA (and I think others) but it will never happen as the public learns what that means and its unattainable anyway.
I disagree on your example of being forced into something.

State laws are changed all he time.

 

[alarmguy]

State laws are changed all he time.

Yes, Federal Decrees too and one never knows what to believe and the only true fact is, it is law unless otherwise changed.

 

[kschachn]

Only problem with hydrogen is the insane dollar cost per mile.

You mean besides distribution and storage? Those are a bit divorced from cost, unless you're storing it as a liquid(!) the density is still an issue on a motor vehicle.

Plus all those people that think distribution is easy don't have a clue about dealing with hydrogen, no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

[Torrid]

Yes, it’s a product. You’re transporting it.

Yes, it’s very energy intensive to create.

It’s not made for free, it’s not something you mine.

It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create it, so ammonia isn’t a solution to “where can we get hydrogen”.

That’s the point.

I don't understand what the point of your tone is but I'm not 12. I also don't think hydrogen is the answer to the question. You obviously didn't read a single other of my posts in this thread. I'm not sure if you just get enjoyment on talking down to people when you arrive late to the conversation. I've literally touched on everything you said here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Interestingly the French are trying to reduce their reliance on nuclear.

No, that's been backed away from now, hence the announcement for up to 12x new EPR's. I made a thread about this when the announcement was made.

That was the result of heavy pressure by Germany to go hard on wind and solar and reduce the share of nuclear, which, given the events of the last few years was finally accepted as being utterly moronic and so Macron has backed away from the plan (that preceded him) to reduce nuclear share to 50%. They did unfortunately shutter a couple of units prematurely however.

In any case I have no idea how they financed the construction of their 70 or so units but the standards of living in France vs the US are vastly different.

Same way we financed it in Ontario, through a publicly owned massive vertically integrated utility. France scores well on the OECD metrics, perhaps not as well as the US in some categories, but the US lags behind Canada and other European nations in many metrics too.

The IRA and "Build Back Better" plans would cover the entire cost of this project:
The Inflation Reduction Act is a trimmed-down version of the $1.85 trillion Build Back Better Act that was narrowly passed by the House on Nov. 19, 2021 with a 220 to 213 vote.

This would be the second part to President Biden’s infrastructure and social spending legislation. Combined with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the total investment would be roughly $1.9 trillion.

Everything is smaller in France. The French per capita electric consumption is approx 50 percent of what it is in the United States.

That's generally the case for Europe. Per capita electric consumption in Canada is even higher than the US and yet Ontario alone managed to build 20 reactors, which would cover >50% of California's annual consumption.

One other thing is that the avg price of power in the France is 21 cents kWh vs 13 cents kWh in the US. Ratepayers in southern and midwestern states would be under serious price shocks.

Which is inexpensive for Europe. It's also cheaper than many northern states and cheaper than California when you factor in that the price in France includes taxes:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics

Here's the total end user cost comparison from the EIA for December of 2022:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
In cents per kWh:

Hawaii	44.78​
Pacific Noncontiguous	33.61​
New Hampshire	30.92​
Massachusetts	30.73​
Rhode Island	27.5​
New England	27.04​
California	24.46​
Connecticut	23.5​
New York	22.79​
Maine	22.52​
Alaska	22.12​
Vermont	20.15​
Middle Atlantic	19.34​
Pennsylvania	17.87​
Michigan	17.79​
Pacific Contiguous	17.67​
New Jersey	16.72​
Illinois	16.19​
East North Central	15.62​
Indiana	15.6​
Maryland	15.56​
District of Columbia	14.98​
Nevada	14.97​
U.S. Total	14.96​
Wisconsin	14.87​
Delaware	14.61​
South Carolina	14.31​
Texas	14.26​
Colorado	14.24​
Florida	14.17​
Ohio	14.12​
Virginia	13.94​
New Mexico	13.56​
South Atlantic	13.46​
West South Central	13.39​
Kansas	13.36​
Minnesota	13.33​
Alabama	13.17​
Kentucky	12.99​
West Virginia	12.76​
East South Central	12.73​
Mountain	12.62​
Arizona	12.56​
Mississippi	12.55​
Tennessee	12.29​
Louisiana	12.28​
Georgia	11.96​
North Carolina	11.85​
Montana	11.81​
West North Central	11.62​
South Dakota	11.29​
Oklahoma	11.23​
Iowa	11.2​
Arkansas	11.17​
Oregon	11.06​
Missouri	11.04​
Utah	10.54​
Idaho	10.51​
Wyoming	10.39​
Washington	10.03​
Nebraska	9.84​
North Dakota	9.62​

Side note: With regards to waste management the US would have to follow the French model and reprocess fuel. I'm assuming it would be transported via rail to one or two location which I think is how it's done in France. NIMBY's would have a field day out of fear of train derailments.

France also reprocesses fuel from all over Europe and even Japan. Reprocessing (PUREX) isn't necessary, but it would make sense, heck, it makes sense right now, but there's no money in it, so it isn't done.

 

[Astro14]

I don't understand what the point of your tone is but I'm not 12. I also don't think hydrogen is the answer to the question. You obviously didn't read a single other of my posts in this thread. I'm not sure if you just get enjoyment on talking down to people when you arrive late to the conversation. I've literally touched on everything you said here.

Take a breath, bud.

Since I made the 4th post in the thread, I am hardly, “late to the conversation.”

My response was before you made any of those points.

Your first post lacked every one of them, and suggested that we use existing ammonia infrastructure, a position from which you have clearly walked away.