Hydrogen powered commercial vehicles.

[tonyidle]

Which single source are you talking about. Electric, oil, gas, hydrogen, solid fuel? Give me a clue.

Probably 99.99% reliant on hydrocarbon fuel.

 

[glenn2926]

Probably 99.99% reliant on hydrocarbon fuel.

But not just one supplier like say for instance the national grid. Which is the only supplier you electric lovers have. If they want to charge more to use their supply system we’ll have no choice. Why you want that I don’t know.

 

[tonyidle]

But not just one supplier like say for instance the national grid. Which is the only supplier you electric lovers have. If they want to charge more to use their supply system we’ll have no choice. Why you want that I don’t know.

Whether I want it or not is irrelevant - it will happen. Anyway I prefer the relative simplicity (and probably lower cost of ownership) of a grid-battery-motor vehicle to that of a grid-hydrogen-fuel cell-battery-motor vehicle. If hydrogen was used to power an ICE it would make some sense (but only from the user point of view) but the space and outlay needed for a fuel cell would be better spent on a larger battery. Hydrogen infrastructure costs would far outweigh those of an improved charging network. Battery technology is moving quickly and range issues will disappear over the next decade. I just cannot see any place for hydrogen even for heavy transport.

 

[glenn2926]

Whether I want it or not is irrelevant - it will happen. Anyway I prefer the relative simplicity (and probably lower cost of ownership) of a grid-battery-motor vehicle to that of a grid-hydrogen-fuel cell-battery-motor vehicle. If hydrogen was used to power an ICE it would make some sense (but only from the user point of view) but the space and outlay needed for a fuel cell would be better spent on a larger battery. Hydrogen infrastructure costs would far outweigh those of an improved charging network. Battery technology is moving quickly and range issues will disappear over the next decade. I just cannot see any place for hydrogen even for heavy transport.

I’d love to know where you get the lower cost of ownership figure from. I have never had more than about £7000 to £8000 in a vehicle other than the moho. Which battery car can I get for this sort of money that can tow a good sized trailer of around 2.5 tons, can go around 400 miles on one fill of fuel and be refuelled in around 3 or 4 minutes ready for another 400 miles? Oh it also has a load capacity of just over 1 ton.
I’m not sure there is a battery vehicle that can do this but if you know of one I’ll definitely be interested.
Edit, sorry I forgot, it has to be 4 wheel drive as I go off road when teaching chainsaw courses.

 

[tonyidle]

I’d love to know where you get the lower cost of ownership figure from. I have never had more than about £7000 to £8000 in a vehicle other than the moho. Which battery car can I get for this sort of money that can tow a good sized trailer of around 2.5 tons, can go around 400 miles on one fill of fuel and be refuelled in around 3 or 4 minutes ready for another 400 miles? Oh it also has a load capacity of just over 1 ton.
I’m not sure there is a battery vehicle that can do this but if you know of one I’ll definitely be interested.

There isn't one. But there will be sooner than you seem to think. As for lower cost of ownership I was comparing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with an equivalent BEV. I too have never purchased any vehicle new (actually I have - one motorcycle in 1968) and have always bought at around 3 yo. Incidentally there would be a future option for users of heavy trailers to carry a bit more battery capacity - I wonder if that will ever come about.

I think it's very difficult to make any prediction as to what the transport infrastructure landscape will look like in ten years time. Cities will, I suspect, look very different and very different EV solutions will apply to cities compared with rural areas. The rail network could be better than road for long distance goods movement with a shift in policy and investment. Maybe something like the container system for shipping.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

There isn't one. But there will be sooner than you seem to think. As for lower cost of ownership I was comparing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with an equivalent BEV. I too have never purchased any vehicle new (actually I have - one motorcycle in 1968) and have always bought at around 3 yo. Incidentally there would be a future option for users of heavy trailers to carry a bit more battery capacity - I wonder if that will ever come about.

I think it's very difficult to make any prediction as to what the transport infrastructure landscape will look like in ten years time. Cities will, I suspect, look very different and very different EV solutions will apply to cities compared with rural areas. The rail network could be better than road for long distance goods movement with a shift in policy and investment. Maybe something like the container system for shipping.

The battery powered trailer idea is interesting. Perhaps caravans could do the same then battery cars could pull them. As you say there just isn’t a battery vehicle that can do what I need a vehicle to do. Yet!! Battery cars don’t seem to have gearboxes so how we could get the equivalent of low box in 4x4 vehicles I’m not sure.
I really do like the powered trailer idea though.

 

[TheTwoOfUs]

Where will all the raw materials used in battery construction come from when every vehicle on the road has a rather large one. And where will the dead batteries be disposed of?

 

[John Barrett]

Maybe but I suspect the cost will not be dissimilar to the Lotus Evjia at around £1.7 Million for a battery car that will do 215 miles on a charge (Oh and I do love Lotus and I have been fortunate to own a number of them)

Lucky you. My brother was the Service Manager at the London Sports Car Centre way back in the 70s. It was he who invented the acronym 'Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious'!

 

[Coolcats]

Lucky you. My brother was the Service Manager at the London Sports Car Centre way back in the 70s. It was he who invented the acronym 'Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious'!

Once true and totally get why they had that reputation. But since the Elise Exige, VX220, Europa S and Evora they are remarkably reliable. I found the Evora more reliable than a couple of Prevous BMW’s I owned. It’s a shame the current range are coming to an end. It will be interesting to see the new cars launched and taking Lotus forward to a new era.

 

[Gromett]

I'm not wishing to be picky here Gromett but the largest range I heard was a theoretical 800km for distance trucks, still impressive but I would love to see the assumptions on that as the power hungry bits are acceleration and hill starting and would soon soak up your Kwh, likewise manouvring a loaded trailer. This is where a hybrid would be beneficial, the method of using a small engine for cruising and then bringing in battery boost to accelerate or get up hills would be a bit like F1 KERS which they know quite a bit about now.

I didnt hear him mention anything about charging time but find it really hard to get away from the practical considerations of trying to whack a huge amount of KW's into a battery pack in 45 minutes x the amount of lorries needing a charge.

800km = 497miles.

As for hills. what goes up must come down. A truck being heavier than a car actually benefits more from regen braking.

Charging will be via gigachargers. They are basically 4 super chargers running in parallel. This was from a test item some time ago so may have changed. But from this we can assume there are 4 battery banks in the truck and each one is charged by it's own independent but balanced charger.

The chargers will be backed by a large battery bank that smooths out the demand from the grid and will take much of it's charge overnight. This will actually help the grid no punish it as it will increase demand at night when normally the grid needs to pay for curtailment of gas and wind power.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Hybrids were a stepping stone that served a valuable intermediate stage.

I know you won't agree, but Hybrids are a better technology for making ICE vehicles fuel efficient. ICE will have a valuable part to play in our transport system for many many years. Hydrogen has its place as a fuel for some vehicles but for practical reasons most should still be diesel or petrol driven.

We will also disagree on the need for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050 and for sales of new fossil fuel cars and vans to be banned from 2030.

Climate change can't be prevented. The orthodox consensus that it is anthropogenic is a massive mistake. 96% of all CO2 emissions are natural and current atmospheric CO2 levels are arguably less than optimal.

By the way, you really should try driving a new hybrid before condemning them all on principle. Book a test drive and report back.

 

[Gromett]

Given that Tesla Hypermarketing department have done their job ‘Tesla’ seems to be the company you refer to. However if your are truly a battery champion you need to mention others who have also stated they are investing in Battery technology Volvo being one of them, I walked past the Mercedes garage yesterday and on display was their EV, just down the road is the BMW Garage with the i3 on display Volvo adverts are all about their EV. Tesla whilst the first EV company (due to no other legacy ice product) is becoming a me too EV. There are now dozens of EV’s to choose from. Trucks and vans will and are hitting the streets. So Tesla will face a market over the coming years as just another player. In the mean time Hydrogen is a serious contender for alternative fuels.

Telsa doesn't have a marketing or media dept. They don't advertise at all.

There is no point using Volvo as an example because they don't have a 600 mile heavy duty truck in development. What is so hard about this?

As for Tesla being just another player in the market. We have been promised Tesla killers or Tesla competitors for years. The Jag iPace, The Audi Etron, The Porsche Taycan were all supposed to be Tesla slayers but their sales were extremely disappointing even with their large marketing budgets.
None of their cars match the Model S in range or efficiency and this is for a car that was launched in 2012...

Q1 for Tesla are historically their worst quarter each year. This year they had a fire which disrupted production but they still managed to have a record Quarter.
184,800 sold up from 88,400 in Q1 2020... To give a comparison. Porsche sold 20,000 Taycans in total across the whole of 2020. Jaguar have sold 40,700 iPace since it was launched in Q2 2018...
Audi sold 47,324 of it's etron range in 2020 across the whole year of 2020. Mercedes sold a total of 48,700 BEV across their entire range in year of 2020.

Now if you were to talk about VW who are going to take second place by a huge margin they sold 134,000 BEV across 2020.

You see now why I use Tesla as the example a lot. Not just because they are leading the market but they are technology leaders as well. They are pathfinders for the others.

 

[Gromett]

Climate change can't be prevented. The orthodox consensus that it is anthropogenic is a massive mistake. 96% of all CO2 emissions are natural and current atmospheric CO2 levels are arguably less than optimal.

Ok, you are one of those deniers then?

Climate change induced by human activity can be prevented.
Orthodox? Seriously?

96% of all CO2 emissions are natural? That may or may not be true and is actually a nonsense figure to throw around sorry.
The CO2 cycle on earth is nicely balanced without human interaction. Imagine a bath with an overflow pipe. The bath is full and the tap running at the same speed as what the overflow can take water away. This is a balanced system.
Now imaging you start pouring additional water into the bath tub. This will overwhelm the overflow and the bath will edge towards the lip of the bath. If you use egg cups it will take a long time to cause the overflow, if you use cups it will happen sooner.
The tap may well be putting in 96% of the water into the bath, but your extra 4% is what is going to cause the bathroom to flood.

Not the best analogy but the first thing that sprang to mind when I gave it.

That 96% figure makes it sound like what we do won't have any impact but it is misleading and probably the product of some oil companies FUD dept or US Republican anti green lobbyist.

CO2 levels are arguably less than optimal? How do you figure. I cannot see any argument that shows that doubling atmospheric CO2 leads to anything good for our species as a whole.

We will also disagree on the need for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050 and for sales of new fossil fuel cars and vans to be banned from 2030.

I have never said 2050 was the right year... I honestly don't know and in practice don't actually care because I will be dead by then (probably).

But the 2030 and 2050 years were set not for scientific reasons but practical and political reasons. If you set the deadline to far our then people, companies, politicians and countries will just kick the can down the road. If you set the deadline too close you make it unachievable and expensive.
The 2030 and 2050 deadlines seem to me to be reasonable to me on both the practical and political grounds. But I am not tied to them, nor do I believe they are the actual correct years based on any scientific data for the exact year we need to get things done by.

 

[Gromett]

By the way, you really should try driving a new hybrid before condemning them all on principle. Book a test drive and report back.

Pass. I am happy with my second hand diesel engined vehicles until the second hand BEV van market develops.

 

[Gromett]

But not just one supplier like say for instance the national grid. Which is the only supplier you electric lovers have. If they want to charge more to use their supply system we’ll have no choice. Why you want that I don’t know.

The national grid is not the supplier. It is simply a transport mechanism. They neither make the electric nor sell it to end users.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

But not just one supplier like say for instance the national grid. Which is the only supplier you electric lovers have. If they want to charge more to use their supply system we’ll have no choice. Why you want that I don’t know.

There is also the fact you can make your own electric if you want. Solar panels on the roof means you can be independently supplied with power for your car.

 

[Gromett]

The battery powered trailer idea is interesting. Perhaps caravans could do the same then battery cars could pull them. As you say there just isn’t a battery vehicle that can do what I need a vehicle to do. Yet!! Battery cars don’t seem to have gearboxes so how we could get the equivalent of low box in 4x4 vehicles I’m not sure.
I really do like the powered trailer idea though.

Battery powered trailers and caravans are already a thing... https://newatlas.com/dethleffs-electric-coco-caravan/56056/
Battery powered trailers would be a very simple solution and will be made when there is a market for them.

As for lack of gearboxes that is an advantage. Not sure if you are aware, but an electric motor produces almost maximum torque at 0 RPM and this continues pretty much up their whole rev range. Diesel engines produce maximum torque at 1,500–2,000 but this falls off rapidly above that narrow range which is why Diesels need a gear box to keep the engine running in that maximum torque range. Add to this an electric motor of equivalent power produces more torque than a diesel engine.

The 4x4 question is easily answered. Remember a diesel 4x4 has a single engine powering all 4 wheels. An electric 4x4 has 2 motors and has much better control over each wheel. Also the electric motor can automatically change the power going to each wheel in milliseconds something just not possible in a diesel engine without complicated clutch mechanisms.

 

[glenn2926]

The national grid is not the supplier. It is simply a transport mechanism. They neither make the electric nor sell it to end users.

I’m sure they charge for the use of it though and seeing as they are the only transport mechanism they can charge whatever they like.

 

[Gromett]

Where will all the raw materials used in battery construction come from when every vehicle on the road has a rather large one. And where will the dead batteries be disposed of?

We have a long time to get this sorted out. The average lifespan of a car in the UK is 13 years before it is scrapped. Diesel cars aren't banned for 9 years. This gives us 22 years to replace our fleet.
Dead batteries? Batteries will usually outlast the car. When they are done, they still have capacity in them, so will go onto second life uses such as storage packs. They will then still have value and the recycling market is developing at full tilt.
There will come a stage in probably 10 -15 years where there are lots of these batteries hitting the recycling at which point demand for new materials will start to fall.

 

[Gromett]

I’m sure they charge for the use of it though and seeing as they are the only transport mechanism they can charge whatever they like.

They can't charge whatever they like. They are regulated on the prices they can charge. They don't charge us they charge the generating companies.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

They can't charge whatever they like. They are regulated on the prices they can charge. They don't charge us they charge the generating companies.

Who regulates them? would that be the government? The same government that is going to have to recoup the fall in tax take from loss of petrol and diesel.

 

[Gromett]

Who regulates them? would that be the government? The same government that is going to have to recoup the fall in tax take from loss of petrol and diesel.

Yes, but as stated, they won't put the price of electric up for many, many reasons. Not least is that they would never get into power for a long time after.
The protests would be as big if not bigger than the poll tax riots. It would hit the poorest the hardest and would hurt industry and as a result hurt their tax income from companies.

They will tax mileage or have a flat fee per car in the future, targeted taxes make a lot more sense and they are not totally stupid.

 

[Coolcats]

Telsa doesn't have a marketing or media dept. They don't advertise at all.

Tesla Marketing Strategy: a brief overview

"Tesla marketing, promotional and advertising costs amounted to USD66.5 million, USD48.0 million and USD58.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.[4] Tesla 7ps of marketing focuses on product and place elements of the marketing mix to a greater extent compared to other elements. Moreover, product and place elements of the marketing mix have been adapted as main sources of Tesla competitive advantages. Specifically, Tesla produces fully electric cars that are fast and attractively designed. Moreover, the electric automaker does not deal with car dealerships and distributors and sells its vehicles directly to end-users".

 

[glenn2926]

I’d love to know where you get the lower cost of ownership figure from. I have never had more than about £7000 to £8000 in a vehicle other than the moho. Which battery car can I get for this sort of money that can tow a good sized trailer of around 2.5 tons, can go around 400 miles on one fill of fuel and be refuelled in around 3 or 4 minutes ready for another 400 miles? Oh it also has a load capacity of just over 1 ton.
I’m not sure there is a battery vehicle that can do this but if you know of one I’ll definitely be interested.
Edit, sorry I forgot, it has to be 4 wheel drive as I go off road when teaching chainsaw courses.

Battery powered trailers and caravans are already a thing... https://newatlas.com/dethleffs-electric-coco-caravan/56056/
Battery powered trailers would be a very simple solution and will be made when there is a market for them.

As for lack of gearboxes that is an advantage. Not sure if you are aware, but an electric motor produces almost maximum torque at 0 RPM and this continues pretty much up their whole rev range. Diesel engines produce maximum torque at 1,500–2,000 but this falls off rapidly above that narrow range which is why Diesels need a gear box to keep the engine running in that maximum torque range. Add to this an electric motor of equivalent power produces more torque than a diesel engine.

The 4x4 question is easily answered. Remember a diesel 4x4 has a single engine powering all 4 wheels. An electric 4x4 has 2 motors and has much better control over each wheel. Also the electric motor can automatically change the power going to each wheel in milliseconds something just not possible in a diesel engine without complicated clutch mechanisms.

Going back to my earlier question. Can you tell me which of your fantastic battery cars can do what I need? Progress to me means the next generation of cars can do as much and more than the last generation not less.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Ok, you are one of those deniers then?

Climate change induced by human activity can be prevented.
Orthodox? Seriously?

96% of all CO2 emissions are natural? That may or may not be true and is actually a nonsense figure to throw around sorry.
The CO2 cycle on earth is nicely balanced without human interaction. Imagine a bath with an overflow pipe. The bath is full and the tap running at the same speed as what the overflow can take water away. This is a balanced system.
Now imaging you start pouring additional water into the bath tub. This will overwhelm the overflow and the bath will edge towards the lip of the bath. If you use egg cups it will take a long time to cause the overflow, if you use cups it will happen sooner.
The tap may well be putting in 96% of the water into the bath, but your extra 4% is what is going to cause the bathroom to flood.

Not the best analogy but the first thing that sprang to mind when I gave it.

That 96% figure makes it sound like what we do won't have any impact but it is misleading and probably the product of some oil companies FUD dept or US Republican anti green lobbyist.

CO2 levels are arguably less than optimal? How do you figure. I cannot see any argument that shows that doubling atmospheric CO2 leads to anything good for our species as a whole.


I have never said 2050 was the right year... I honestly don't know and in practice don't actually care because I will be dead by then (probably).

But the 2030 and 2050 years were set not for scientific reasons but practical and political reasons. If you set the deadline to far our then people, companies, politicians and countries will just kick the can down the road. If you set the deadline too close you make it unachievable and expensive.
The 2030 and 2050 deadlines seem to me to be reasonable to me on both the practical and political grounds. But I am not tied to them, nor do I believe they are the actual correct years based on any scientific data for the exact year we need to get things done by.

I am a sceptic, not a denier. The better view seems to be that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator of warming not the cause. From ice cores.

Even with the most powerful supercomputers our weather predictions have a high degree of uncertainty beyond about 5 days. Why we should expect leaders to base their climate change "emergency" policies on computer modelling of the climate (see also the much-criticised recent epidemiological modelling) is irrational and reeks of groupthink. We are heading towards de-industrialising and making the West economically much weaker, for the benefit of the highly polluting Chinese and Indian economies that effectively have an amnesty under the Paris Climate Accord. This is geopolitics, not science.

If we genuinely wish to have a greener planet Earth, the current 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 level is a bit low. It should be in the range 500-1000 ppm for more plant growth, higher crop yields, and greater food security for humanity, with a bit to spare. I would argue that 500 ppm is a rational goal in the short to medium term. That's what I meant by my sub-optimal point.

My current expectation is we are heading into a solar grand minimum, and a potential mini ice age. In which case, we are going to regret the current decarbonising policies which will become meaningless. If that overmighty billionaire Gates gets his way and fills the upper atmosphere with fine chalk dust to block sunlight, that will bring it on sooner. Disastrous famines ... millions or even billions of deaths ... but of course (they) want to decrease the human population by 90% as part of the Great Reset.

Again, I fully expect you to dismiss all of this as nonsense but that doesn't bother me.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Raul]

Those panels look amazing. Are they the thin flexible type from their website? I wonder if it’s possible to retrofit those to a tile roof?

Depends on the tiles you got. If is retrofit, best option is GSE roof integrated, Viridian, or if you are re roofing, I would go for the solar tiles by solar mass. They are large flat interlocking tiles that look like slates. They called stonewall. The gse roof integrated comes with plastic trays portrait or landscape, that takes. ordinary panels. This gives the choice of panels, micro inverters for partial shade or optimisers from solar edge. There is of course the BiPV that jongood posted, its stick on to substrate CIGS.

 

[olley]

Tesla Marketing Strategy: a brief overview

"Tesla marketing, promotional and advertising costs amounted to USD66.5 million, USD48.0 million and USD58.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.[4] Tesla 7ps of marketing focuses on product and place elements of the marketing mix to a greater extent compared to other elements. Moreover, product and place elements of the marketing mix have been adapted as main sources of Tesla competitive advantages. Specifically, Tesla produces fully electric cars that are fast and attractively designed. Moreover, the electric automaker does not deal with car dealerships and distributors and sells its vehicles directly to end-users".

Thanks for that cc, in his eagerness to defend tesla grom sometimes gets it wrong.

 

[Gromett]

Tesla Marketing Strategy: a brief overview

"Tesla marketing, promotional and advertising costs amounted to USD66.5 million, USD48.0 million and USD58.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.[4] Tesla 7ps of marketing focuses on product and place elements of the marketing mix to a greater extent compared to other elements. Moreover, product and place elements of the marketing mix have been adapted as main sources of Tesla competitive advantages. Specifically, Tesla produces fully electric cars that are fast and attractively designed. Moreover, the electric automaker does not deal with car dealerships and distributors and sells its vehicles directly to end-users".

They are trying to sell you a paper on Tesla marketing.

Tesla do not have a marketing dept. They do not spend on advertising.

I suspect these people are trying to put a value to Musk's social media activities and the cost of their launch events and special events like battery day.

 

[Coolcats]

Thanks for that cc, in his eagerness to defend tesla grom sometimes gets it wrong.

I guess we all do it sometimes but you can’t get to where Tesla are without marketing or lobbying governments.
I have no issues with battery powered cars, but that’s what they are, a car,. All manufactures will have them along with truck manufacturers, looking at Hydrogen activity across varying sectors there is a desire to have hydrogen as part of the alternative fuels mix. There are bus manufacturers who have small hydrogen stores topping up large battery storage and large Hydrogen storeage topping up a small battery, there is also new capacitor imitative that may come in to play. Tesla exists due to the emergence of new battery technology, no ice production and therefore lead the way but others will be strong EV and alternate fuel manufactures it’s going to be an interesting world that emerges from all this.

 

[Gromett]

Thanks for that cc, in his eagerness to defend tesla grom sometimes gets it wrong.

I wasn't wrong. I was quite careful in my statement.

His post doesn't show that they have a marketing dept, or a media dept. It also doesn't prove they advertise.

These are the exact words I used. I chose them carefully.

Telsa doesn't have a marketing or media dept. They don't advertise at all.

They did have a very light weight PR dept until the middle of last year. But they disbanded that.

Tesla dissolves its PR department — a new first in the industry

Electrek can confirm that Tesla has dissolved its PR department — technically becoming the first automaker who doesn’t talk to...

electrek.co

Coolcats link was from 2018. In 2018 they did have a PR dept and this could quite rightly be attributed to marketing. It no longer exists.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}