German government: 1 million electric cars by 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Won't electric cars require more power plants? Utilities will just raise our bills to pay for that.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Won't electric cars require more power plants? Utilities will just raise our bills to pay for that.


Sure. So?

Now if you want to retreat to a non-endless consumption economic model you can reduce the number of units on the road ..and HECK ..you won't have to even introduce the things.

Try an look at CAFE ..not as a fuel economy mandate ..but an enabler for more cars to be produced. Same thing here.

Consumption is our motto here at North American Corp.
 
Originally Posted By: NJC
10 yrs ago the headlines would have been x amount of fool (fuel) cell cars on the road by 2004 etc. The tide (polarity?) seems to be changing over to electric.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRgr3LFL7x8ILPYa9wrD92B6uhwwD9A603D80


fool cells? Any idiot knows that for a FC vehicle to be viable, advanced energy storage is necessary to ride through the transients. Transients are not good for any thermodynamic engine. Depending upon the battery, transients and cycles can be a non-issue for the energy storage component.
 
Plus, given the decrepit status of power distribution, energy storage tied to the grid allows the sheep to stabilize the generator and distributors' profits. In situations where the cost per MWH go sk high, theyll give you a few cents so they can save a few bucks.

Great setup...
 
Ford has an interesting plan to ease the load on the grid:

Ford Electric Vehicles To Communicate With Power Grid

Quote:
The automaker's smart-grid communication system, which Ford will test on 21 plug-in hybrids, allows a car and grid to speak to one another to provide more efficient charging, Ford and power company officials said...

The system enables drivers to plug in their car and have the car and the electric company determine the best time to recharge the vehicle. This allows consumers to save money on recharging and helps utilities better manage the electric grid.
 
I'm sure most cars will be charged off-peak, so for the first few years I doubt it will be an issue, and obviously electric companies can chare a dual-rate structure to force people to do this.

So for the first few million, we probably have the infrastructure for this. And really anyone who thinks that automotive technology moves fast enough for it to take less than a decade for a million electric cars to hit our road... take a look at the 40 plus years it took fuel injection to propogate... or airbags... or any other technology that is good in every way except cost.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
advanced energy storage is necessary to ride through the transients.

PEM FC's don't have problems with transients, as far as I know. The advanced energy storage would be onboard H2 tanks @ ~10,000psi.
 
They do. If you want life out of any FC, you minimize the transients. Controlled ventures to certain voltage ranges are one thing, but for a 10k hour stack or something with respectable life, you dont want to push it too hard.
 
It might be a problem, but not one that I've ever heard to be substantial. IE it's something that is seemingly well under control - but I'll research it a bit more. Mostly membrane thinning, holes, catalyst contamination, seal failures are ones that spring to mind. Check out Table 1.2 of this link

http://tinyurl.com/mhngmf
 
As I mentioned in another thread, we are only 2 breakthroughs away from being able to use hydrogen, a way to produce it, and a way to transport it. Why don't we put the money going into that boondoggle into methanol?

Pyrolyzing cellulose leaves behind a char. The electric companies would be happy to burn the low sulfur residue.
 
This article , written by Ulf Bossel and Baldur Eliasson, was a convincing piece against a H2 economy. Conclusion:

Quote:
Time has come to shift the attention of energy strategy planning, research and development from a “Hydrogen Economy” to a “Synthetic Liquid Hydrocarbon Economy” and to direct manpower and resources to find technical solutions for a sustainable energy future which is built on the two closed clean natural cycles of water and CO2 or hydrogen and carbon. If carbon is taken from the biosphere or recycled from power plants ("bio-carbon") and not from fossil resources ("geocarbon"), the "Synthetic Liquid Hydrocarbon Economy" will be environmentally as benign as a "Pure Hydrogen Economy".

I'm not convinced about his synthetic liquid HC alternative, but a compelling scientific argument against using H2 as a source of energy.
 
Have you ever attended the FC seminar. Ulf is there most years. Ulf has strong opinions that aren't necessarily the end all, be all either. I would not validate my opinions upon his.
 
I was responding to labman's comment regarding "we are only 2 breakthroughs away from being able to use hydrogen...." and I still think Ulf's science behind the link I posted is convincing. Give it a read if you haven't.

I haven't attended any of the FC seminars - not official public ones anyways..
 
Originally Posted By: NJC
I was responding to labman's comment regarding "we are only 2 breakthroughs away from being able to use hydrogen...." and I still think Ulf's science behind the link I posted is convincing. Give it a read if you haven't.

I haven't attended any of the FC seminars - not official public ones anyways..


Once we find a magic way to transport it, we can use it at all stages. He does point out difficulties usually not thought of.

We may be able to make the technology for synthetic liquid HC work before hydrogen or the breakthrough in batteries for electric cars. That will just leave a plentiful source energy lacking.
 
Problem is that H2 isn't a fuel, we have to make it.

That makes it a storage medium (interim battery if you will)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top