Tesla officially dethrones the (hydrogen) Toyota Mirai as the longest range for zero emission cars
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Elspin;51075604]This is relevant to consumer production (small amounts, typically hobby stuff) but industrial production is almost never done with electrolysis, which is where it would be produced for cars. It's still less efficient, but nowhere near as bad as 25% (and electric cars are also nowhere near 99%)[/QUOTE]
You are right. Industrial production is done with methane. Which they get from fossil fuels, which is what we are trying to avoid.
No electric cars are not 99% efficient. Their Energy storage system is though. (Or is close to)
For the Hydrogen calculation I did not count power delivery either.
[editline]20th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elspin;51076026]As does burning coal to perform electrolysis, but my point was more that the efficiency is nowhere as bad on an industrial scale as it is on a simpler consumer device for producing hydrogen.[/QUOTE]
True.
[editline]20th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morgen;51078277]Abundant? I don't know where you live but I live on the planet Earth and that is not the case.
Electricity is far more abundant. We have electricity literally everywhere in developed countries, just need to add outlets.[/QUOTE]
Well to make Hydrogen you just need water and electricity. So, looking at it that way, it is abundant.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;51078536]20 years isn't that long, are they making any progress with battery storage or is it a brick wall situation like the limits of silicon computers?[/QUOTE]
Depends what you count as progress. In terms of practical energy density you can put in a consumer product it's effectively a brick wall that they've chipped away at with a plastic spoon over the past two decades (some small advances by tweaking the materials around the battery, substrates, etc). In terms of presenting batteries in labs that have drastically better energy density/specific energy it's happened a lot of times but in the end they haven't found one of those that can also match the convenience and reliability of lithium batteries. If you make a battery that has 10x the capacity of lithium, but it only lasts a month or two, it would be hard to use it practically and people trying to would probably cause enormous waste (which we definitely don't need more of)
[url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175137-sugar-powered-biobattery-has-10-times-the-energy-storage-of-lithium-your-smartphone-might-soon-run-on-enzymes]Here's the sugar battery I referred to earlier[/url] as an example: it's a much better battery in terms of capacity but what's the maximum discharge rate? internal resistance? reliability (in many terms)? does it leak anything? The answer to the last question at least appears to be yes: it leaks water (fantastic), and many other questions are left unanswered. If they're still on track with their seemingly insane estimate of being able to commercialize it in 3 years I'd be incredibly excited, even if it's not practical in smartphones due to water leaking out, but I haven't heard a peep about it in 2.5 years so I'm not betting on it.
The only thing hydrogen is good for is keeping zeppelins aloft. Bring back zeppelins
H3 is not -technically- impossible if we get space operations up and goign
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;51078536]20 years isn't that long, are they making any progress with battery storage[B] or is it a brick wall situation like the limits of silicon computers?[/B][/QUOTE]
More or less. The theoretical limits of what's possible with lithium in terms of energy density aren't a hell of a lot beyond what we can do right now. Major improvements have been in increasing the number of charge cycles before they break and other such refinements.
Short of jumping to a new medium, battery tech is approaching a stagnation point. There's only so many clever engineering quirks they can do to increase pack density, and reduce weight.
I'm getting the idea that battery technology has grinded to a halt. If that were the case where to from here?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51079407]The only thing hydrogen is good for is keeping zeppelins aloft. Bring back zeppelins[/QUOTE]Even then it's way too combustible for that, Helium is much safer even though it needs a larger volume.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51079411]H3 is not -technically- impossible if we get space operations up and goign[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what the safety issues are with containers full of hydrogen reentering the atmosphere but I'm sure they are not insignificant.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51083139]I'm not sure what the safety issues are with containers full of hydrogen reentering the atmosphere but I'm sure they are not insignificant.[/QUOTE]
By the time we got far enough in our solar system to mine we'd probably have processing plants in space.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51083924]By the time we got far enough in our solar system to mine we'd probably have processing plants in space.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by processing? Hydrogen remains hydrogen until use (which is presumably on earth), there's no processing step in between that would make it safe other than just storing it on metal hydrides but the added weight would probably be impractical for space mining/transportation.
[QUOTE=Morgen;51078277]Abundant? I don't know where you live but I live on the planet Earth and that is not the case.
Electricity is far more abundant. We have electricity literally everywhere in developed countries, just need to add outlets.[/QUOTE]
Uh no, hydrogen is literally the most abundant element in the universe, we just have no infrastructure for using it as a fuel, nor is it very practical at the moment
And you do realize unless we start putting down a nuclear power plant every ten yards, 67.4% of global electricity comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas right?
And as it stands, batteries are very dirty to produce, have short lifetimes and take ages to charge in a way that's healthy for the battery. Even if every gas station in the world was replaced with a flash charging station, electric cars as they are right now would be a downgrade in practice.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51087392]And you do realize unless we start putting down a nuclear power plant every ten yards, [b]67.4% of global electricity comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas right?[/b]
And as it stands, batteries are very dirty to produce, have short lifetimes and take ages to charge in a way that's healthy for the battery. Even if every gas station in the world was replaced with a flash charging station, [b]electric cars as they are right now would be a downgrade in practice.[/b][/QUOTE]
This is wrong (not the % claim, but your understanding of how it affects the end result). You can produce electricity more efficiently with "dirty" sources on an industrial scale than you can produce useful work in your engine, and electric cars use that energy a lot more efficiently. That's just considering the cases where it does come from dirty sources but even by your claim about a third of the world's energy isn't coming from those sources as well. Some case studies have been done and in the nations that use the least clean energy sources the result is pretty comparable but worldwide on average it would be a clear upgrade.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51087392]Uh no, hydrogen is literally the most abundant element in the universe[/QUOTE]
Sure, if you include all the molecules that have hydrogen in them, but aren't purely hydrogen.
H2 gas is [b]not[/b] abundant.
[editline]22nd September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elspin;51087688]This is wrong (not the % claim, but your understanding of how it affects the end result). You can produce electricity more efficiently with "dirty" sources on an industrial scale than you can produce useful work in your engine, and electric cars use that energy a lot more efficiently. That's just considering the cases where it does come from dirty sources but even by your claim about a third of the world's energy isn't coming from those sources as well. Some case studies have been done and in the nations that use the least clean energy sources the result is pretty comparable but worldwide on average it would be a clear upgrade.[/QUOTE]
The other advantage on top of the efficiency boosts, is that it gets the source of pollution out of the cities. Smog in a city like LA is awful, particularly because of the air patterns trapping shit in the city. If you move the source of that pollution to the middle of Nevada, there's nothing but abandoned uranium mines and naturally occurring asbestos to worry about.
That cleans up the cities, which improves health. This also safely enables higher population densities, which can increase inefficiencies even further.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.