Motorhome evolution in a diesel-banned future

[Christopher Robb]

Lithium batteries can charge at massive speeds. Even basic LifePO4 batteries available today can charge at a 3C rate which means 20 minutes to full. Remember Lithium based batteries operate totally differently to Lead batteries. There is no absorption or float states. At 3C you can put 100% of the charge in, in 20 minutes if you have a powerful enough charger. Super Chargers can put HUGE amounts of energy in and these are being rolled out today. The current generation of Tesla super chargers for instance are 120KW chargers and can put an 80% charge into a 400 mile car in just over 30 minutes.

Even using a petrol engine as a generator for a charger. You would need the petrol engine, a fuel tank and a large charger to be added to the van. This would reduce the space available for batteries and also add to the weight and reduce payload for negligable benefit. Looking ahead in 10 years battery technology will have progressed further meaning 300, 400 and 500 mile battery banks...

Solar panels are a non starter with our use case. In fact we will probably stop putting solar panels on the roof of motorhomes to save weight as we will be using the vehicle electrics for battery power...

I believe that fast charging will only charge to 70 or 80%.

 

[tacr2man]

How long do you think your cable will stay attached to your car overnight , Brit Rail has a job hanging on to its signal/etc wires , and they are far harder to access

 

[PhilG]

How long do you think your cable will stay attached to your car overnight , Brit Rail has a job hanging on to its signal/etc wires , and they are far harder to access

LOL at that , when we are at a race, folk unplug you from the mains all the time, imagine coming out thinking you have been on charge all night to find out you haven't... I go mad when someone pulls my phone.

 

[Gromett]

1. Fast and super fast charging kills batteries (even Lithium)

Erm, no it doesn't. Lithium batteries can be charged extremely quickly without significantly affecting their lifespan. The things that affect the lifespan are fast discharges, high temperatures, discharging too low and overcharging. Lithium batteries are endothermic when charging so don't generate heat when charging (unless overcharged).

2. Super fast charging has a much higher loss of energy than slow charging - no accurate data that I can find, Superfast is the only way it can practically deliver a usable system for roadside re charge.

Lithium batteries are as close to 100% efficient in that you get as much out as you put in. Unlike lead acid batteries which are only around 85% efficient.

3. Availability of Lithium: Teslas plans alone for Electric Cars and massive storage batteries reduce the know reserves of Lithium (this years consumption rate) from 300 odd years to 14 years. That includes the know reserves and the estimated known and unexploited reserves.

Lithium is not predicted to suffer any shortages. A lithium battery is only 2% lithium and there are lots of mines coming on line currently in anticipation of demand increasing...[/QUOTE]

 

[Gromett]

I believe that fast charging will only charge to 70 or 80%.

Closer to 80%. But you are correct. They charge on a CCCV method. You apply a constant current up to 3C until you reach the charge voltage, then you stabilise the voltage and the current will slowly fall as the battery reaches maximum charge. The 80-90% part of the CV is also pretty quick. So for a 3C rated battery charged at it's maximum rate you are looking at around 25-30 minutes.

However... A car battery is configured not to charge to it's maximum level to extend the lifespan. The top 5% is not used and the bottom 10% is not used (or figures around that mark).
So in actual fact a CCCV charge capped will actually reach close to the 100% useable level in just over 20 minutes in optimum conditions.

I have posted this before, but it is worth a watch as Li batteries are nothing like Pb Batteries.

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

 

[tacr2man]

Thank goodness for climate change so we have the prophesied excess of sun and wind to use these renewables, even tho its not a man made phenomenon JMHO

 

[tonyidle]

It is important to note that the Government has only talked about Diesel cars.

 

[Gromett]

It is important to note that the Government has only talked about Diesel cars.

And Petrol.
And Vans.

 

[PhilG]

I will go on record now, and say it wont happen, in 10 years it will be shelved/rescheduled/dropped .

Big oil has a lot to lose, and a lot of time to sort it out, plus the people behind the multitude of OEM suppliers will certainly be lobbying , as i know they are already.

 

[Gromett]

I will go on record now, and say it wont happen, in 10 years it will be shelved/rescheduled/dropped .

Big oil has a lot to lose, and a lot of time to sort it out, plus the people behind the multitude of OEM suppliers will certainly be lobbying , as i know they are already.

I will go on record and say it will happen, however the vast majority of people will have moved to electric cars by the time of the ban so it will in effect be pointless.

Big Oil, sees where things are going and has started the big investment in wind, solar, batteries, chargers and much more... Those things will be much more profitable than Oil going forward.

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

 

[Lawrencep]

There's little doubt that electric vehicles would be able to do all that I/C powered vehicles can do today. However, I believe that by the time manufacturers have sorted that, there will be a different form of propulsion to replace what is already old technology; that is lithium battery powered vehicles. I believe development of hydrogen power will be the way things will go and Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have apparently already started manufacturing hydrogen powered cars. It is interesting that hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars are to be produced in Zhangjiakou to serve the 2022 Olympics and there are many other current examples.

 

[PeteH]

Subsidy (financial) Aid suplied by a government., As to industry. Monetary aid. Any aid supplied by Government can only come from Taxation. (MY pocket!). Why should we (the small taxpayer) pay to put profit in the pockets of "Big Business".? Yet ALL the current "Green Technology" is subsidised. Why not pay a subsidy to have the COAL under the UK mined and Burnt. thereby ensuring that the UK is no longer dependant upon FOREIGN supplies!. With the bye product that employment will follow in area`s of current unemployment. Win Win. I commend it to the house!!.

 

[tonyidle]

I

And Petrol.
And Vans.

Was trying to make the point (badly) that so far larger vehicle manufacturers aren't involved.

 

[Gromett]

There's little doubt that electric vehicles would be able to do all that I/C powered vehicles can do today. However, I believe that by the time manufacturers have sorted that, there will be a different form of propulsion to replace what is already old technology; that is lithium battery powered vehicles. I believe development of hydrogen power will be the way things will go and Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have apparently already started manufacturing hydrogen powered cars. It is interesting that hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars are to be produced in Zhangjiakou to serve the 2022 Olympics and there are many other current examples.

I have answered the hydrogen question a few times before. The simple fact is that there are only two ways of getting hydrogen in large quantities. One involves a high temperature energy intensive process called Steam Methane reforming. Which uses a lot of energy and produces CO and CO2 as a by product. It will also be very expensive if we move to all hydrogen vehicles as the current source of methane is from natural gas.. The second method is hydrolysis which is really inefficient. Once you extract the hydrogen you then have to spend more energy cooling it and compressing it. You then have to transport it.

Current fuel cells that use hydrogen are either not power dense enough to power a car, or use high value metal such as platinum in the catalyst.

On top of the energy inefficiency, the cost of transporting it, the safety issues etc. We would need to convert all petrol stations to be hydrogen stations. There are safety issues in that Hydrogen is a pernicious molecule that is very hard to store, causes metal embrittlement and goes boom in a massive manner when it escapes... Can you imagine 100's if not 1'000s of hydrogen tankers running all over the country, transferring to petrol stations, then transferring again to people cars by people who are lucky not to blow themselves up with petrol?

While all of the above is possible and could be done. When you do a direct comparison with battery/electric cars hydrogen just doesn't stack up, either from a CO2 point of view, a cost point of view or a safety point of view..

Now where fuel cells do work is on things like ferries. For instance the Shetland Islands have an excess of electric, so what they are doing is using this to create hydrogen which is then used to power a fuel cell for the ferry. There is a very short distribution route, There is no pumping of moving of hydrogen between containers and the fuel cells are in a fixed location so they can make big ones using the cheaper technology.

I put my money on battery cars being the cheaper, faster and easiest option.

 

[Gromett]

Subsidy (financial) Aid suplied by a government., As to industry. Monetary aid. Any aid supplied by Government can only come from Taxation. (MY pocket!). Why should we (the small taxpayer) pay to put profit in the pockets of "Big Business".? Yet ALL the current "Green Technology" is subsidised. Why not pay a subsidy to have the COAL under the UK mined and Burnt. thereby ensuring that the UK is no longer dependant upon FOREIGN supplies!. With the bye product that employment will follow in area`s of current unemployment. Win Win. I commend it to the house!!.

You subsidise the petro chemical industry already through your taxes. If you compare the subsidy renewables get vs what the petro chemical industies get you would be absolutely shocked. We are talking Billions vs Millions.. Then there is the externalities of petrochemicals in the form of CO2 and pollutants..

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

 

[Gromett]

I

Was trying to make the point (badly) that so far larger vehicle manufacturers aren't involved.

You are correct, it is only petrol and diesel cars and vans so far. But my guess is by the time the ban comes in Trucks will be all electric anyway. They have a financial motive to move to electric in a much bigger way than a car owner does. Might not be practical at the moment for the longest distance trucks but at the rate of development of batteries I don't think 23 years is too far out for all electric trucking industry. Possibly only shipping and long distance airlines still using hydrocarbons by then...

 

[tonyidle]

You are correct, it is only petrol and diesel cars and vans so far. But my guess is by the time the ban comes in Trucks will be all electric anyway. They have a financial motive to move to electric in a much bigger way than a car owner does. Might not be practical at the moment for the longest distance trucks but at the rate of development of batteries I don't think 23 years is too far out for all electric trucking industry. Possibly only shipping and long distance airlines still using hydrocarbons by then...

Probably correct. As far as air transport is concerned change will be a long time coming. Maybe electric blimps using the trade winds .

 

[Lawrencep]

I have answered the hydrogen question a few times before. The simple fact is that there are only two ways of getting hydrogen in large quantities. One involves a high temperature energy intensive process called Steam Methane reforming. Which uses a lot of energy and produces CO and CO2 as a by product. It will also be very expensive if we move to all hydrogen vehicles as the current source of methane is from natural gas.. The second method is hydrolysis which is really inefficient. Once you extract the hydrogen you then have to spend more energy cooling it and compressing it. You then have to transport it.

Current fuel cells that use hydrogen are either not power dense enough to power a car, or use high value metal such as platinum in the catalyst.

On top of the energy inefficiency, the cost of transporting it, the safety issues etc. We would need to convert all petrol stations to be hydrogen stations. There are safety issues in that Hydrogen is a pernicious molecule that is very hard to store, causes metal embrittlement and goes boom in a massive manner when it escapes... Can you imagine 100's if not 1'000s of hydrogen tankers running all over the country, transferring to petrol stations, then transferring again to people cars by people who are lucky not to blow themselves up with petrol?

While all of the above is possible and could be done. When you do a direct comparison with battery/electric cars hydrogen just doesn't stack up, either from a CO2 point of view, a cost point of view or a safety point of view..

Now where fuel cells do work is on things like ferries. For instance the Shetland Islands have an excess of electric, so what they are doing is using this to create hydrogen which is then used to power a fuel cell for the ferry. There is a very short distribution route, There is no pumping of moving of hydrogen between containers and the fuel cells are in a fixed location so they can make big ones using the cheaper technology.

I put my money on battery cars being the cheaper, faster and easiest option.

 

[Lawrencep]

Thank you for the detailed response. It seems I need to do some more reading as things appear to have moved on since I last looked. Mind you, I still have an illogical gut feeling that hydrogen will be the answer in the longer term. Let's "talk" again in a year or so!

 

[tonyidle]

Thank you for the detailed response. It seems I need to do some more reading as things appear to have moved on since I last looked. Mind you, I still have an illogical gut feeling that hydrogen will be the answer in the longer term. Let's "talk" again in a year or so!

Unless someone comes up with a substance with a molecule smaller than hydrogen it's hard to see how storage and movement will ever be safe. It's a bit like storing water in a nylon stocking .

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

 

[AlaskaGuy]

How long do you think your cable will stay attached to your car overnight , Brit Rail has a job hanging on to its signal/etc wires , and they are far harder to access

I know of small tech companies developing contactless charging systems, whereby a vehicle parks over an embedded-in-ground charger unit and connects via a coded access. For use at residences and public on-street spaces.
There is also a line of thinking about interchangeable battery packs. So when your EV is indicating low power, you pull in to the new version of a petrol station and swap batteries.

 

[PeteH]

You subsidise the petro chemical industry already through your taxes. If you compare the subsidy renewables get vs what the petro chemical industies get you would be absolutely shocked. We are talking Billions vs Millions.. Then there is the externalities of petrochemicals in the form of CO2 and pollutants..

SO WRONG. ALL The taxation goes to Government, NOT into Business Pockets. What the government does with it, is another "can o worms". As for this so called "Global warming" SCAM, why is it that hurricane Irma, is the largest most powerful storm, Since 1927?. which begs the question that there was "global warming" then?. Even though the "Scientists" appear to agree that it is a Post WW2 Phenomenon?. The penalties (Tax) on Carbon fuel generally are immense already.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I have answered the hydrogen question a few times before. The simple fact is that there are only two ways of getting hydrogen in large quantities. One involves a high temperature energy intensive process called Steam Methane reforming. Which uses a lot of energy and produces CO and CO2 as a by product. It will also be very expensive if we move to all hydrogen vehicles as the current source of methane is from natural gas.. The second method is hydrolysis which is really inefficient. Once you extract the hydrogen you then have to spend more energy cooling it and compressing it. You then have to transport it.

Current fuel cells that use hydrogen are either not power dense enough to power a car, or use high value metal such as platinum in the catalyst.

On top of the energy inefficiency, the cost of transporting it, the safety issues etc. We would need to convert all petrol stations to be hydrogen stations. There are safety issues in that Hydrogen is a pernicious molecule that is very hard to store, causes metal embrittlement and goes boom in a massive manner when it escapes... Can you imagine 100's if not 1'000s of hydrogen tankers running all over the country, transferring to petrol stations, then transferring again to people cars by people who are lucky not to blow themselves up with petrol?

While all of the above is possible and could be done. When you do a direct comparison with battery/electric cars hydrogen just doesn't stack up, either from a CO2 point of view, a cost point of view or a safety point of view..

Now where fuel cells do work is on things like ferries. For instance the Shetland Islands have an excess of electric, so what they are doing is using this to create hydrogen which is then used to power a fuel cell for the ferry. There is a very short distribution route, There is no pumping of moving of hydrogen between containers and the fuel cells are in a fixed location so they can make big ones using the cheaper technology.

I put my money on battery cars being the cheaper, faster and easiest option.

I agree. Hydrogen is far too dangerous for use as a fuel for millions of cars and vans. They can't even make cars and vans that don't leak petrol or diesel, even though these technologies have been around a long time. How many burning cars have you seen? Me: several. Must be quite commonplace. Hydrogen storage/fuel systems needs to be 100% leak proof for the life of the vehicle, and foolproof even if the vehicle is badly maintained, otherwise it is simply too hazardous. Think Hindenberg Zeppelin disaster.

 

[Gromett]

The penalties (Tax) on Carbon fuel generally are immense already.

Erm, The subsidies the oil industry receives far outweighs the taxes.. The generators still manage to make a massive profit with this so called carbon tax.

 

[Gromett]

I know of small tech companies developing contactless charging systems, whereby a vehicle parks over an embedded-in-ground charger unit and connects via a coded access. For use at residences and public on-street spaces.

This tech has been around for quite a while (2010 at least) ... Qualcom is one company that has been developing it..

There is also a line of thinking about interchangeable battery packs. So when your EV is indicating low power, you pull in to the new version of a petrol station and swap batteries.

Tesla was going to do this, they even had a test site for it. They have withdrawn from it for a number of reasons.

Me personally, if I bought a new car, I wouldn't want to swap the battery for one that maybe older and not so good? Would you risk it?

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

 

[PeteH]

Erm, The subsidies the oil industry receives far outweighs the taxes.. The generators still manage to make a massive profit with this so called carbon tax.

What Subsidy?. Petroleum Revenue is all paid to Government? so where`s the subsidy?.

 

[Gromett]

What Subsidy?. Petroleum Revenue is all paid to Government? so where`s the subsidy?.

When a company doesn't have to pay the tax it expected to pay... Honestly look it up

 

[Gromett]

What Subsidy?. Petroleum Revenue is all paid to Government? so where`s the subsidy?.

Sorry, bit drunk tonight, had a few beers and a bit of fun for once.. Just got back and did a quick google for you

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nly-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

 

[PeteH]

"New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures."

I fail to see how a "Tax Break" is a subsidy?. Most Industry gets some form of "Tax Break" and many of those are not producing anything (The UK Film industry for one?). Mp`s get "Tax Breaks". They just call it "Expenses"!. Direct subsidy ie x-pence/Kw, (FiT), is what is actually paid to my next door neighbour, or more accurately discounted from his account.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I agree. Hydrogen is far too dangerous for use as a fuel for millions of cars and vans. They can't even make cars and vans that don't leak petrol or diesel, even though these technologies have been around a long time. How many burning cars have you seen? Me: several. Must be quite commonplace. Hydrogen storage/fuel systems needs to be 100% leak proof for the life of the vehicle, and foolproof even if the vehicle is badly maintained, otherwise it is simply too hazardous. Think Hindenberg Zeppelin disaster.

Broken Link Removed
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/hyundai/ix35-fuel-cell


All production model Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars. The Clarity has been available in one form or another for about 10 years.

Not only can they do it, they are doing it

The biggest stumbling block in the UK is that there are only a handful of garages selling hydrogen and those are all in the South East.

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