Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 21, 2018 8:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 21, 2016 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
Well, if you don' t like methanol from biomass, you can even have methanol from natural gas that is the easiest and most efficient way to produce it - even though it's a very efficient way to store through biomass gasification off-peak (or underused) electricity viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4704&start=15 to produce high grade fuels vehicle with a higher market price. And again, if you don't like fuel cells, methanol is still a very powerfull fuel for IC engines as well, as we discussed some time ago viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4333


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2016 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Iowa, USA
I'm not a fan of methanol generally since, as I understand it, is quite damaging to many common engine components we use. Methanol dissolves plastic and rubber hoses and seals, damages aluminum, and strips off lubricating oils. Ethanol is not much better as a fuel, its not nearly as toxic but still damages plastic and rubber.

One thing that bothers me about alcohol as fuel is that there is this federal law or regulation somewhere that mandates "oxygenating agents" in automotive fuel. At first I thought that might mean something like hydrogen peroxide or nitrous oxide, the kind of stuff used as an oxidizer in rockets. What I found out is that it means ethanol because ethanol is ethane that has been partially "pre-burned" for us with that extra oxygen atom hanging on there.

I say if we are going to synthesize fuels then lets make them as energy dense as possible, not "pre-burned" like alcohols. A bonus to using hydrocarbons to alcohols is that the hydrocarbons lubricate the metals instead of strip the lubrication off.

I get that methanol and ethanol raises octane levels which helps with knocking but aren't most engines fuel injected anyway? Knocking is only a problem if the fuel is mixed with the air during the compression cycle. With fuel injection the fuel isn't present until the piston is already past top center, those kind of engines cannot knock. Also, when using a hydrocarbon instead of an alcohol the fuel has more energy per volume which to me sounds like a way to get better performance.

I get that in the case of drag racers and such they use alcohols for a variety of performance and safety features unique to that sport. In passenger cars we're not trying to get little Tommy and Jenny to soccer practice at 200 miles per hour, 50 or 60 miles per hour is about all we need there.

In short, I just don't "get" alcohols.

When it comes to fuel cells the alcohols still don't look all that great since there is still the problems of the alcohols attacking rubber, plastics, and aluminum. Maybe the alcohols are nicer to the fuel cells for reasons I don't "get" just yet but I'm quite sure that the fuel cells that burn methane are not all that more complicated than the ones that burn methanol.

Fuel cells are certainly quieter than ICEs of whatever form, as they have no moving parts which can be a plus. The power produced by weight and volume don't seem all that great by comparison though. This would be especially true for things like FPLAs replace typical crankshaft ICEs. We've been doing ICE-electric drive trains for nearly a century now. It started on ships and submarines, moved to trains, and now its gotten small and light enough to do on cars and trucks.

It's great to see fuel cells advance for a lot of reasons but ICEs are not standing still. This is especially true when the ICEs are integrated into the electric generation. It used to be that the ICE and generator were treated as separate devices connected with a coupling in between them. Now they are being designed as a single unit, which gives us a savings on weight, materials, and volume.

Another thing I like about ICEs over fuel cells is that they don't require expensive equipment, precious metals, and surgical theater cleanliness to produce. ICEs could be mass produced with a small team of technicians in a barn, with common machinist tools, and off the shelf electronics. Perhaps I exaggerate a bit but I don't think that it is too far off.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2016 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1547
Kurt Sellner wrote:
I get that methanol and ethanol raises octane levels which helps with knocking but aren't most engines fuel injected anyway? Knocking is only a problem if the fuel is mixed with the air during the compression cycle. With fuel injection the fuel isn't present until the piston is already past top center, those kind of engines cannot knock. Also, when using a hydrocarbon instead of an alcohol the fuel has more energy per volume which to me sounds like a way to get better performance.

A fuel injected engine can still knock as the primary definition of 'knocking' is that the fuel undergoes detonation and not deflagration - and detonation can occur in an injected engine. Pre-ignition is actually a seperate, but related, phenomenon which as you say, cannot actually happen in an injected engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2016 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
Kurt Sellner wrote:
I'm not a fan of methanol generally since, as I understand it, is quite damaging to many common engine components we use. Methanol dissolves plastic and rubber hoses and seals, damages aluminum, and strips off lubricating oils. Ethanol is not much better as a fuel, its not nearly as toxic but still damages plastic and rubber.


Simply, if methanol as fuel is adopted a complete different set of material should be used (like LPG or compressed methane, even though for differnet reasons), at an extra cost of a few hundreds $ or eur (that is less than LPG or CNG costs, anyway)

Quote:
One thing that bothers me about alcohol as fuel is that there is this federal law or regulation somewhere that mandates "oxygenating agents" in automotive fuel. At first I thought that might mean something like hydrogen peroxide or nitrous oxide, the kind of stuff used as an oxidizer in rockets. What I found out is that it means ethanol because ethanol is ethane that has been partially "pre-burned" for us with that extra oxygen atom hanging on there.


Being methanol oxygen for 50%, this a big advantage of it - that is a big advantage of efficiency too, less air to compress and react with means also lower losses of combustion

Quote:
I say if we are going to synthesize fuels then lets make them as energy dense as possible, not "pre-burned" like alcohols. A bonus to using hydrocarbons to alcohols is that the hydrocarbons lubricate the metals instead of strip the lubrication off.

I get that methanol and ethanol raises octane levels which helps with knocking but aren't most engines fuel injected anyway? Knocking is only a problem if the fuel is mixed with the air during the compression cycle. With fuel injection the fuel isn't present until the piston is already past top center, those kind of engines cannot knock.


Not sure, but I get the impression you' re confusing Diesel (compression) engine with Otto (gasoline) engine functioning, anyway, no, any fuel can actually knock is not properly used, for instance if compressed at a level that octane number fuel can't sustain

Quote:
Also, when using a hydrocarbon instead of an alcohol the fuel has more energy per volume which to me sounds like a way to get better performance.
I get that in the case of drag racers and such they use alcohols for a variety of performance and safety features unique to that sport. In passenger cars we're not trying to get little Tommy and Jenny to soccer practice at 200 miles per hour, 50 or 60 miles per hour is about all we need there.


It's not only a matter of extra power - that you' re right, in an ordinary world is almost worthless - but of better driving cycle efficiency in a broader operating range, together with very low emissions typical of these fuel. With methanol, in the end, you can get a brake thermal efficiency levels better than a comparable turbocharged diesel with emissions of NOx, CO and HC using a conventional aftertreatment system extremely low as many studies have shown :

http://www.macmadigan.com/Public/cylind ... f-no55.pdf
http://academic.sun.ac.za/microbiology/ ... edrone.pdf
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/presentations ... 743-v2.pdf

Quote:
In short, I just don't "get" alcohols.

When it comes to fuel cells the alcohols still don't look all that great since there is still the problems of the alcohols attacking rubber, plastics, and aluminum. Maybe the alcohols are nicer to the fuel cells for reasons I don't "get" just yet but I'm quite sure that the fuel cells that burn methane are not all that more complicated than the ones that burn methanol.

Fuel cells are certainly quieter than ICEs of whatever form, as they have no moving parts which can be a plus. The power produced by weight and volume don't seem all that great by comparison though. This would be especially true for things like FPLAs replace typical crankshaft ICEs. We've been doing ICE-electric drive trains for nearly a century now. It started on ships and submarines, moved to trains, and now its gotten small and light enough to do on cars and trucks.

It's great to see fuel cells advance for a lot of reasons but ICEs are not standing still. This is especially true when the ICEs are integrated into the electric generation. It used to be that the ICE and generator were treated as separate devices connected with a coupling in between them. Now they are being designed as a single unit, which gives us a savings on weight, materials, and volume.

Another thing I like about ICEs over fuel cells is that they don't require expensive equipment, precious metals, and surgical theater cleanliness to produce. ICEs could be mass produced with a small team of technicians in a barn, with common machinist tools, and off the shelf electronics. Perhaps I exaggerate a bit but I don't think that it is too far off.


Basically I agree with all this, fuel cells don't deserve all this effort when methanol optimized IC engines are already such optimal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2016 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Iowa, USA
Thanks, Alex P, for the detailed reply. I've read it but not sure I've soaked it all in. It pleases me to see that someone that agrees with me about fuel cells getting more attention than they likely deserve. I'm not please that fuel cells are not catching up to ICEs, I'm pleased that I'm getting something right.

Fuel cells do deserve research and development but we should not put them into applications where they are not suited.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 23, 2016 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Kurt Sellner wrote:
I'm pleased that I'm getting something right.
Kurt, I bet your list of things you got and get right is long and impressive. Joining and furthering the effort to get energy from thorium is absolutely right. This topic on fuel cell costs is narrow. One thing it recognizes is grid storage I guess for load management for what I know. What is the best way to build and run electric power grids?

Anyway, Cyril R started this topic January 2014 almost two years before the EPRI FE LFTR Report. Cyril's topic began with:
Cyril R wrote:
What is the real cost of hydrogen fuel cell systems? A simple question whose answer is cluttered by massively inconsistent reports and actual projects. The hydrogen.energy.gov website has a cost of around $600/kWe for 50k systems a year of 100 kWe/system. At that price, a fuel cell car of 100 kWe would cost some $60,000 in fuel cell system alone, which is way too expensive. The recent 2012 market report has a lot of inconsistent cost data in it.

2012 DOE Fuel Cell Market Report

"Plug Power announced that the production costs for its fuel cells (ranging from 1.8 kW-10 kW) fell from $18,000 in 2008 to between $10,000 and $11,000 in 2012." So over $1,100/kWe for Plug Power. FuelCell Energy, the current market leader, and a big company with over 120 million $ in revenues, is quoted as $2,500/kWe on their current production cost. A large order from FuelCell Energy, ". . . receiving a $181 million order for 121.8 MW of fuel cells to be manufactured in Torrington, Connecticut . . ."; that's $1,500/kWe on a 121,800 kWe order, well beyond the equivalent of 1000 x 100 kWe systems level.

Another project, "Fuel cell operates using biomethane generated from regional residual biomass. Part of a multi-phase, 50 MW, $500 million agreement." from ClearEdge Power Projects. $10,000/kWe for the 10,000x 5 kWe systems level. The hydrogen.gov reference gives $2,300/kWe for such systems at such production level for SOFC CHP.

Yet the same report dares to mention the US DOE estimates: $47/kWe @ 500,000 systems/year of 100 kWe, and they have been talking of low costs for ten years at least. A lot of hydrogen advocates quote the US DOE on this. Their estimates for 10,000 systems a year is $85/kWe. That's completely non-plausible by real projects and orders and industry reported costs. The hydrogen.gov puts this level of production at a fuel cell systems cost of over $500/kWe. So one government agency says it costs $85/kWe, the other says $500/kWe for identical size and production rate.

It appears that the US DOE is living in a world called Microsoft Office Excel Spreadsheet, where a hydrogen fuel cell system costs almost nothing. For the rest of us who don't live in that spreadsheet, fuel cell systems are wildly unaffordable. Even the much less optimistic hydrogen.gov estimate is off by a large factor.
Brilliant. Unless nuclear energy can be supplied at a cost lower than natural gas in abundance, other energy technologies can't get traction?

FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCEL)
Quote:
FuelCell Energy Inc
NASDAQ: FCEL - Sep 23, 10:37 AM EDT
5.31USD Price increase 0.01 (0.19%)

As a leading global fuel cell company, we provide ultra-clean, efficient and reliable baseload distributed generation for electric utilities, commercial and industrial companies, universities, municipalities, government entities and other customers around the world.
Fuel Cell Energy, Inc.
Quote:
Our DFC fuel cells also have a low carbon footprint. Natural gas contains carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. Fuel cells operating on natural gas release less CO2 than combustion-based power generation due to the high efficiency of the fuel cell power generation process. For example, nine states in the USA have classified stationary fuel cells as Class I renewable power generation due to their high efficiency and resultant low carbon emissions. Fuel cells operating on biogas are typically classified as carbon-neutral by regulatory authorities due to the renewable nature of the biogas fuel source.
The FE LFTR—if it could be built—would be a zero-emissions power plant.
EPRI October 2015 Program on Technology Innovation: Technology Assessment of a Molten Salt Reactor Design—The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) wrote:
Flibe Energy’s reference LFTR system described and evaluated in this report is a 600-MWth reactor paired with an advanced power conversion system for a 250-MWe net electricity output.
How much NG is that equal to in a FCE NG fuel cell plant?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Sep 23, 2016 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
I don' t really understand this obsession on hydrogen fuel cell when battery (or plug-in) electric vehicles are much more efficient and pratical with a technology that with very few limitations is perfectly available today at a reasonable low cost, particurally if you look at new models like 30 kWh Nissan leaf, 33 kWh BMW i3 or Bolt in the US and so on. For example, this Austrian owner of a BMW i3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EMMG8ir5Mw
easily gets in his daily commuting less than 10 kWh per 100 km (that is equivalent of nearly 100 km per liter or 225 US mpg of gasoline), a figure that is pratically impossible to even match with any other energy system - the only limitation is in very long range that' s why I believe we still need a serial hybrid approach, where methanol (or DME) optimized IC engines are the best solutions


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 02, 2016 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 379
Actually there's a pollution-free auto technology that doesn't even require exotic batteries.
Lead-acid batteries can handle local trips. Most energy use occurs on high-speed highways.
If they are electrified, vehicles can just use electricity from stationary power plants.
The crucial technology is an inductive pickup, and the EPRI developed it back in the '90s.
https://www.google.com/patents/US5341280
Ford embedded it into a system proposal, as well.
http://staff.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRISMGPCPaper.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 03, 2016 4:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Kurt Sellner wrote:
I'm not a fan of methanol generally since, as I understand it, is quite damaging to many common engine components we use. Methanol dissolves plastic and rubber hoses and seals, damages aluminum, and strips off lubricating oils. Ethanol is not much better as a fuel, its not nearly as toxic but still damages plastic and rubber.

The ethanol damage problem is a long solved one, Brazil has tens of millions of ethanol only cars since the early 80s, and the overwhelming majority of new cars are able to run on gasoline, ethanol, natural gas or any combinations (our standard gasoline has 20-30% of ethanol, changing according to ethanol availability). Its a fully solved problem. Ethanol cars are also a reality in the USA, although in much smaller penetration.

Meanwhile, Tesla recently rolled out its 100kWh battery pack, enough to get over 300 miles range, and the larger the pack, the more faster it is to get X KWh at supercharger stations. Plenty of Tesla users state they get a full charge at their lunch breaks from the supercharger. With 300 miles range, most trips need zero or one recharge along the way, and people are driving coast-to-coast and the snow bird route with Tesla all the time.
In a decade that big pack will loose 25% in weight (purchasing a new car or replacing the pack), and 150kWh packs will be available with 500+ mile range.

Mark my words, fuel cells are dead on arrival for automotive transportation, Li Ion storage is here, and by the time Fuel Cell car production is ready to scale up, Li Ion will have eaten all of its lunch (with 10% of worldwide car production EV by the time FCVs dream about producing 100k units / yr, Tesla production levels alone are already above 2k cars / wk which means over 100k cars / yr. By 2017 worldwide EV production will break one million units (1% of production), in 5-6 years Tesla alone will be making that many cars.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Last edited by macpacheco on Nov 03, 2016 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 03, 2016 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
rgvandewalker wrote:
Actually there's a pollution-free auto technology that doesn't even require exotic batteries.
Lead-acid batteries can handle local trips. Most energy use occurs on high-speed highways.
If they are electrified, vehicles can just use electricity from stationary power plants.
The crucial technology is an inductive pickup, and the EPRI developed it back in the '90s.
https://www.google.com/patents/US5341280
Ford embedded it into a system proposal, as well.
http://staff.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRISMGPCPaper.pdf


Lead Acid batteries wear very quickly if discharged below 50% often, Li Ion is made for that. Lead Acid is great for what they're used right now (occasional deep discharge). The Prius NiMh design is so much better than Lead Acid if Lead Acid weight is acceptable.
But Li Ion prices are continuing to drop close to 10% per yr, the Tesla Gigafactory will force that trend to continue for a while. Many Tesla cars already have 100k miles on the same battery pack. And Tesla isn't shy about just replacing some if they under perform (8 yr unlimited mileage warranty on the whole drive train including the pack). Lithium Ion cells are much easier to recycle than be made from fresh materials.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2016 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
Advantages of electric vehicles are already leading to limited EV use.
Lithium is already the material for electronic equipment batteries. However the vehicle battery on a large scale for IC vehicle ranges would amount to orders of magnitude increase in battery use. We may find it wiser to
1. Have batteries of commoner materials.
2. Have the batteries of limited capacity backed by fuel cells or even solar charging by photovoltaic cells in roofs. Methanol/Ethanol fuel cells will save us the high pressure fuel storage. These fuels are in use as fuel or solvent and the corrosion is manageable.
Direct or modified ethanol or methanol fuel cells seem to be the sensible alternative. The highest pressure in the vehicle may be in tyres!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2016 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1547
There has been a lot of interesting work done on sodium-ion batteries recently that suggests they might be able to overcome some of their deficiencies


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2016 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Iowa, USA
jagdish wrote:
2. Have the batteries of limited capacity backed by fuel cells or even solar charging by photovoltaic cells in roofs.

PV cells on the roof of a vehicle will do next to nothing to propel a vehicle. I was on a solar car competition team in college and did the math on how much energy in from solar power compares to the energy out to move the vehicle. This was a single passenger vehicle made like what amounts to little more than a bicycle covered with a windbreak made of styrofoam and plastic. It had no stereo, no heat or A/C, and took in sun from sun up to sun down to run at no where near highway speeds for an hour or two.

If you expect to have these PV cells on the roof of a house and/or garage then you might have a little better luck in having something practical but not by much. Again, I've seen the math and it does not work out well.

Batteries simply cannot compete with vehicles that burn fuel on matters of energy storage (by mass, volume, and costs) because of some very real physical limitations in how a battery works. Also the convenience factor is poor for batteries, the energy transfer rate of pouring gasoline is much faster and safer than any battery charging.

I then go back to your earlier point...
jagdish wrote:
1. Have batteries of commoner materials.

We use these less common materials because they make the batteries lighter and more energy dense. If we make the batteries from more common materials then the vehicles become heavier with less energy available on board. This is a death spiral, the heavier the vehicle the more energy it takes to move, lowering the energy density of the energy store on your vehicle means more mass to store the energy. Add into this that force equals mass times acceleration and that is the path of a very heavy and slow vehicle.

I've seen electric vehicles in use for a very long time, as forklifts. They use the batteries as a counterweight for the lifting and only need to go as fast as maybe five miles per hour. As nice as these forklifts are in many cases they tend to only be used in enclosed spaces where the noise and exhaust of an ICE would be a problem. We can make a passenger vehicle using the same inexpensive batteries as those used in a forklift but I'd expect them weigh just as much and to have about the same top speed.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2016 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
jagdish wrote:
Advantages of electric vehicles are already leading to limited EV use.
Lithium is already the material for electronic equipment batteries. However the vehicle battery on a large scale for IC vehicle ranges would amount to orders of magnitude increase in battery use. We may find it wiser to
1. Have batteries of commoner materials.
2. Have the batteries of limited capacity backed by fuel cells or even solar charging by photovoltaic cells in roofs. Methanol/Ethanol fuel cells will save us the high pressure fuel storage. These fuels are in use as fuel or solvent and the corrosion is manageable.
Direct or modified ethanol or methanol fuel cells seem to be the sensible alternative. The highest pressure in the vehicle may be in tyres!


There is zero shortage of materials to make lithium ion cells, zero. Production can increase by an order of magnitude. The bottleneck is optimizing industrial processes/building more factories.
Tesla would not have built the Giga Factory if anything you say were logical.
Fuel cells are too expensive and too low efficiency for the processes you claim make sense. If that were true, there would be GW class fuel cell plants using reformed methane, when in fact where isn't, because its too expensive (even with massive subsidies that both fuel cells and EVs enjoy).
When the first (and so far only) Giga Factory achieves its upgraded production goals, it will double today's Lithium Ion cell capacity worldwide.
Meanwhile Toyota has no meaningful production plans for the Mirai, still waiting for them to break something like 20000 units/yr (I bet the Mirai will die a slow death perhaps never breaking 20k units/yr production).
I recall a web site called fuel cells 2000. As 2010 zipped by and fuel cells were still not in mass production they killed the site to avoid the embarrassment. I used to follow that site as far back as 1998 !

Let me say this again, raw material costs to make Lithium Ion cells are tiny vs the cost of the process. Its just like the Uranium isn't rare issue (if you allow the cost to rise a little), same deal.

EVs will kill oil refining and gasoline stations worldwide, I'm about to turn 44, I bet this will happen before I'm 70. By then we'll have 1000 mile range EVs for off road activities, and the most basic new EV will have 300 mile range (enough to drive a whole week for most people). Lithium Ion storage density will more than triple, cost will drop by an order of magnitude, as in a decade about half of new Lithium Ion cells will be made of recycled cells rather than new ones (just because the recycling process is cheaper than processing new ore).

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuel cell costs
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2016 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
macpacheco wrote:
There is zero shortage of materials to make lithium ion cells, zero. Production can increase by an order of magnitude. The bottleneck is optimizing industrial processes/building more factories.

The problem with your observation is that to get to realistic EV numbers we need 2 to 3, maybe even 4 orders of magnitude, not just one. IMHO, the best path is to go PHEV with just enough battery to go maybe 5 or 10 miles. That way we MIGHT keep it down to 1.5 OOM and have enough resource.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group