or perhaps known as centralized vs decentralized control. you gotta use our H2 or our gasoline, or fossil fuel or our electricity instead of collecting your own electrons at much less cost.
$2.75 trillion revenue for 11 fossil fuel companies last year. electric companies complaining about 1% drop in revenue stream due to renewables, so slow the tranistion of wealth and power in any way I love my (PH)EV and make part of the electricity I use in it every day Until you get either a starship and jump to the eagle nebula (pillars of creation) or a scoopship and dive/collect jupiters atmosphere, H2 will e a very inefficient method of running vehicles. many folks have huge sunk costs (already invested) intellectually and financially in fool cells and need to die off before the idea goes away -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 7/29/14, Mark Abramowitz via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits To: "Marion Hakanson" <hakan...@easystreet.net>, "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@lists.evdl.org> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 10:24 AM Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Marion Hakanson via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > > I have a cousin who lives in Italy. They own a small Fiat van which runs on both methane (compressed) and regular gasoline; Apparently it costs the equivalent of $20 to fill the methane tank, and about $100 to fill the gas tank (which they'll do if they're in the hinterlands and can't find a methane station). > > If most H2 comes from methane (natural gas), why not just burn the methane directly, instead of converting it multiple times (and losing something at every step), so you can feed it to a fuel cell? For the same reason there is a ZEV mandate and you want a power plant to burn the natural gas and give you electricity to run your battery electric. Emissions. Remember, ZEV stands for zero emission vehicles. > > Regards, > > Marion > >> On 07/28/14 10:30 PM, Mike Nickerson via EV wrote: >> https://greet.es.anl.gov/ >> >> I have looked at it in the past. One thing to look at when someone reports results of the model: >> >> Everything is configurable in the model. Make sure the assumptions about generation and usage are well understood (either left to defaults or well documented). It is very easy to sway the outcome with changes in assumptions. >> >> In many cases, the changes can be realistic, but they need to be vetted. For example, running the model for Idaho, the electrical grid is more than 50% renewable and less than 30% coal. Those assumptions for New York would be very wrong. I believe the defaults are national averages. >> >> Mike >> >> >>> On July 28, 2014 7:33:57 PM MDT, Cor van de Water via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: >>> All data I have seen till now shows that emissions go up with the >>> indroduction of H2, due to the low efficiency well-to-wheels of >>> creating >>> H2. >>> So, it is considered not just a very difficult energy carrier, but also >>> inefficient, besides being very costly in roll out. >>> If you have data to the contrary, I am interested in vetting it (since >>> it is easy to mislead with cherry-picked info). My mind is open, I tend >>> to decide >>> based on data. Fan-boy? Not so much. >>> Got a link for that GREET model? >>> >>> Cor van de Water > _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
