Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
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 wrote: Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits To: "Marion Hakanson" , "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 10:24 AM Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Marion Hakanson via EV 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 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Don't presume that all the automakers have similar interests to put themselves at an advantage over their competitors. And don't forget there are other interests in there, too. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2014, at 12:40 AM, Lee Hart via EV wrote: > > Dennis Miles via EV wrote: >> Because, Marion, the fool cell gives the least pollution at the vehicle. >> (And the manufacturers want the carbon credits, and Is, I have been told, >> the refining or conversion, of methane to hydrogen, is done in an >> unregulated location, not in the motor vehicle.) > > Exactly. Regulations can instigate changes. But exactly *how* the regulations > get written is vitally important in what kinds of changes get implemented. > > Years ago, gas water heaters had a standing pilot light. The pilot used a > small amount of gas, but the heat from the pilot was still going up the flue, > and still heating the water. The pilot had other side benefits, like keeping > the burner dry and free of bugs and mice, improving safety, and lowering cost. > > The government made it clear that they were going to implement efficiency > standards, with or without industry's help. So the water heater manufacturers > did a clever thing. They WROTE the regulations for the government. The > regulations eliminated the standing pilot light, and mandated a more complex > and expensive electronic ignition system. They also carefully made sure that > the energy used by the ignition system was NOT counted when calculating the > efficiency of the water heater. They also reduced the expected life of a > water heater to HALF of what it had formerly been (20 years was reduced to 10 > years typical). > > The result was that a) water heaters cost more, b) lasted a shorter time, and > c) could advertise higher efficiency, but not deliver it if you counted the > energy used by the new ignition system and blowers. These measure had the > effect of DOUBLING the profit on water heaters, which up until then had been > a stagnant low-profit industry. > > The auto companies are equally clever. I think they have figured out that if > they stop fighting CARB, and instead *write* the regulations, they can rig > the standards to favor themselves, and put other solutions (like EVs) at a > competitive disadvantage. > -- > The definition of research: Shoot the arrow first, and paint the target > around where it lands. -- David Van Baak > -- > Lee Hart's EV projects are at http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm > ___ > 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Marion Hakanson via EV > 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 >>> 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Worth repeating. Also, I believe NREL has released charts with the various assumptions, and results. You'll find national power mix, CA power mix, H2 from SMR, H2 from renewables, etc.. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 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 >> 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 >> Chief Scientist >> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >> Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info >> Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM >> To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in >> 15min >> for7 credits >> >> You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current > ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Mark, Please tell me where I claimed that? All I said was that the introduction of H2 will increase the overall CO2 production due to the added inefficiencies, besides it being an expensive and risky experiment - likely to waste many millions of taxpayer money in California alone, while the simple use of natural gas in vehicles will achieve a lower overall CO2 consumption and much lower risk and capital investment. Since you are bent on going the H2 route, there must be a reason that you are willing to fight this uphill battle, some interest that would not be served by the more logical choice for natural gas vehicles. If my drive to avoid wasting (my) taxpayer money on this experiment is questionable in your eyes, then I will just let that statement reflect on you without further comment. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:29 AM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits And BEVs are not zero emission vehicles either? You can not pick and take us into the weeds ( where I suspect your "facts" are as questionable as the rest of your higher level drivel), but BEVs are not zero emission from a GHG standpoint. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: > > Because then Mark can't claim that he has zero-emissions vehicles, > so he wants to convert to H2 (and lose a significant part of the energy) > and that inefficient H2 will then qualify for the highest subsidies by > California as "zero emissions". > All the while *increasing* the CO2 emissions, compared to using the > natural gas directly in the vehicle (which would not fit the arbitrary > requirement > of "zero emissions" but which would bring the total system emissions > down significantly - without excessive costs for a H2 infrastructure... > > *that* is what I hinted at earlier and that Mark does not want to > hear... > He even continues to claim that his solution is better, like a good > lobbyist > but without even hinting at *how* that solution is better. > The only thing I have seen till now is the claim "zero emissions". > If you read the previous few sentences again, you'll understand what a > canard that claim is in this respect. > > BTW, > In most European countries it is normal to find Natural gas (called LPG) > at most gas stations, as around 10% of all vehicles run on that fuel, > mostly the highest-mileage vehicles as the fuel is very cheap but the > installation in the car is taxed the highest (yearly tax) so you only > come out ahead if you drive enough (say, more than 30,000 a year) while > between 10-30k mi per year you would usually be better off with Diesel > as fuel and below 10k mi per year the low vehicle tax and high fuel tax > on regular gas (petrol) will make that the best option. This is for > passenger vehicles - semi trucks always use Diesel. > Since natural gas is not always available in all regions and countries, > and because it is easy - often required - to run occasionally on regular > gas to protect the engine, the installation is always "dual-tank": a gas > cylinder plus a liquid "petrol" tank. The gas cylinder typically holds > LPG enough for about 200 miles range, sometimes less. That is another > reason to have an additional petrol tank. If the gas cylinder holds 30 > liters of liquefied gas and the price is around 0.50 Euros per liter, > then this is indeed $20 for a > fill up, but understand that this is maybe half or one third the price > per mile of regular petrol. 100 Euro gives you approx a full 60-liter > (15 gal) > ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Dennis Miles via EV wrote: Because, Marion, the fool cell gives the least pollution at the vehicle. (And the manufacturers want the carbon credits, and Is, I have been told, the refining or conversion, of methane to hydrogen, is done in an unregulated location, not in the motor vehicle.) Exactly. Regulations can instigate changes. But exactly *how* the regulations get written is vitally important in what kinds of changes get implemented. Years ago, gas water heaters had a standing pilot light. The pilot used a small amount of gas, but the heat from the pilot was still going up the flue, and still heating the water. The pilot had other side benefits, like keeping the burner dry and free of bugs and mice, improving safety, and lowering cost. The government made it clear that they were going to implement efficiency standards, with or without industry's help. So the water heater manufacturers did a clever thing. They WROTE the regulations for the government. The regulations eliminated the standing pilot light, and mandated a more complex and expensive electronic ignition system. They also carefully made sure that the energy used by the ignition system was NOT counted when calculating the efficiency of the water heater. They also reduced the expected life of a water heater to HALF of what it had formerly been (20 years was reduced to 10 years typical). The result was that a) water heaters cost more, b) lasted a shorter time, and c) could advertise higher efficiency, but not deliver it if you counted the energy used by the new ignition system and blowers. These measure had the effect of DOUBLING the profit on water heaters, which up until then had been a stagnant low-profit industry. The auto companies are equally clever. I think they have figured out that if they stop fighting CARB, and instead *write* the regulations, they can rig the standards to favor themselves, and put other solutions (like EVs) at a competitive disadvantage. -- The definition of research: Shoot the arrow first, and paint the target around where it lands. -- David Van Baak -- Lee Hart's EV projects are at http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Because then Mark can't claim that he has zero-emissions vehicles, so he wants to convert to H2 (and lose a significant part of the energy) and that inefficient H2 will then qualify for the highest subsidies by California as "zero emissions". All the while *increasing* the CO2 emissions, compared to using the natural gas directly in the vehicle (which would not fit the arbitrary requirement of "zero emissions" but which would bring the total system emissions down significantly - without excessive costs for a H2 infrastructure... *that* is what I hinted at earlier and that Mark does not want to hear... He even continues to claim that his solution is better, like a good lobbyist but without even hinting at *how* that solution is better. The only thing I have seen till now is the claim "zero emissions". If you read the previous few sentences again, you'll understand what a canard that claim is in this respect. BTW, In most European countries it is normal to find Natural gas (called LPG) at most gas stations, as around 10% of all vehicles run on that fuel, mostly the highest-mileage vehicles as the fuel is very cheap but the installation in the car is taxed the highest (yearly tax) so you only come out ahead if you drive enough (say, more than 30,000 a year) while between 10-30k mi per year you would usually be better off with Diesel as fuel and below 10k mi per year the low vehicle tax and high fuel tax on regular gas (petrol) will make that the best option. This is for passenger vehicles - semi trucks always use Diesel. Since natural gas is not always available in all regions and countries, and because it is easy - often required - to run occasionally on regular gas to protect the engine, the installation is always "dual-tank": a gas cylinder plus a liquid "petrol" tank. The gas cylinder typically holds LPG enough for about 200 miles range, sometimes less. That is another reason to have an additional petrol tank. If the gas cylinder holds 30 liters of liquefied gas and the price is around 0.50 Euros per liter, then this is indeed $20 for a fill up, but understand that this is maybe half or one third the price per mile of regular petrol. 100 Euro gives you approx a full 60-liter (15 gal) tank of petrol, since the avg price is around 1.70 Euro/l which is almost $9 per gal. I am afraid that if we remove the various subsidies from H2 and look at its cost (which has not been published by anyone that I am aware of) then the European fuel prices will seem cheap compared to H2. Especially if you know that there is also compressed gas available in USA - there are a few isolated dedicated filling stations, usually near airports, and there is the home filling station using a compressor and your good old natural gas pipeline (not available in all homes, but present in the majority). Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Marion Hakanson via EV Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:53 PM To: ev@lists.evdl.org Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits 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? 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 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
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Because, Marion, the fool cell gives the least pollution at the vehicle. (And the manufacturers want the carbon credits, and Is, I have been told, the refining or conversion, of methane to hydrogen, is done in an unregulated location, not in the motor vehicle.) Even with the losses in fuel conversion, an EV with a fool cell, charging the small battery pack (The system used in all fool cell vehicles) is still more efficient, than an ICE running on methane, and the ICE spews CO2 and Nitric oxides, from the exhaust, just not quite so many as a common gasoline car. An aside , most of the vehicles at Disney World in Orlando. Florida including their gas turbine electric generating plant are running on natural gas and have been for the past 44 years... They claim a 50% reduction in exhaust emissions...(Compared to gasoline in 1970 ! ) Dennis Lee Miles (*evprofes...@evprofessor.com )* * Founder:**EV Tech. Institute Inc.* *Phone #* *(863) 944-9913 (12 noon to 12 midnight Eastern US Time)* *Educating yourself, does not mean you were **stupid; it means, you are intelligent enough, **to know, that there is plenty left to learn!* * You Tube Video link: http://youtu.be/T-FVjMRVLss <http://youtu.be/T-FVjMRVLss> * On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Marion Hakanson via EV 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? > > 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 >>> Chief Scientist >>> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >>> Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info >>> Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] >>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM >>> To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List >>> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in >>> 15min >>> for7 credits >>> >>> You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current >>> emissions of either criteria or GHGs. Again, check the results from the >>> GREET model. >>> >>> Every responsible agency that I work with locally believe that you >>> CANNOT meet public health standards or GHG goals without both BEVs and >>> FCEVs. >>> >>> We need a 60%+ decrease in NOx emissions to meet current standards, >>> which data indicates are inadequate, and we expect will be tightened >>> further. >>> >>> In a short time, most purchased autos will need to be ZEVs. That means >>> that people like Peri, who has identified range issues as necessitating >>> his own ICE
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
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? 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 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 Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current emissions of either criteria or GHGs. Again, check the results from the GREET model. Every responsible agency that I work with locally believe that you CANNOT meet public health standards or GHG goals without both BEVs and FCEVs. We need a 60%+ decrease in NOx emissions to meet current standards, which data indicates are inadequate, and we expect will be tightened further. In a short time, most purchased autos will need to be ZEVs. That means that people like Peri, who has identified range issues as necessitating his own ICE in addition to a BEV, will need to forget the ICE. For some, that will mean BEVs, for some FCEVs, for some hybrids, and (IMO), combinations of those as technology progresses. We need ZEVs of all flavors. Sorry for your pain, but it's all self-induced as well as hindering efforts of those that know what they're doing. The fanboy stuff isn't productive for those of us doing real work. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: Mark, If I am mistaken and you do have an interest in the environment, then your words and your actions are in conflict. The fact that you are not just promoting Hydrogen but even lobby to get legislation that makes it a requirement and the environment be damned by the associated increase in CO2 output, makes this all the more painful. Regards, Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:23 AM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits Thank you for falsely stating stating my interest and what I care about. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: Bill, Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the amount of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you will understand. I urge all members of this forum to once again adhere to the earlier decision to avoid Hydrogen as a topic, because it is explosive. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [ma
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
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 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 >Chief Scientist >Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info >Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > >-Original Message- >From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM >To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List >Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in >15min >for7 credits > >You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current >emissions of either criteria or GHGs. Again, check the results from the >GREET model. > >Every responsible agency that I work with locally believe that you >CANNOT meet public health standards or GHG goals without both BEVs and >FCEVs. > >We need a 60%+ decrease in NOx emissions to meet current standards, >which data indicates are inadequate, and we expect will be tightened >further. > >In a short time, most purchased autos will need to be ZEVs. That means >that people like Peri, who has identified range issues as necessitating >his own ICE in addition to a BEV, will need to forget the ICE. For >some, >that will mean BEVs, for some FCEVs, for some hybrids, and (IMO), >combinations of those as technology progresses. > >We need ZEVs of all flavors. > >Sorry for your pain, but it's all self-induced as well as hindering >efforts of those that know what they're doing. The fanboy stuff isn't >productive for those of us doing real work. > > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Cor van de Water via EV > wrote: >> >> Mark, >> If I am mistaken and you do have an interest in the environment, >> then your words and your actions are in conflict. >> The fact that you are not just promoting Hydrogen but even lobby to >> get legislation that makes it a requirement and the environment be >> damned by the associated increase in CO2 output, makes this all the >> more painful. >> >> Regards, >> >> Cor van de Water >> Chief Scientist >> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >> Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info >> Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:23 AM >> To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in >15min >> for7 credits >> >> Thank you for falsely stating stating my interest and what I care >about. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Cor van de Water via EV >>> wrote: >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. >>> He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the >> amount >>> of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). >>> He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you >> will >>> understand. >>> >>> I urge all members of this forum to once again adhere to the earlier >>> decision to avoid Hydrogen as a topic, because it is explosive. >>> >>> Cor van de Water >>> Chief Scientist >>> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >>> Email:
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
I am just starting to read about microbial electrolysis. it is interesting - make H2 from #2 poo and water. I have no idea if it can scale to the sort of needs of transportation. It is even exothermic so it could generate some sort of thermal energy as a byproduct. It is still not going to be as efficient as PV to batteries, but it has merit on the surface - what better thing to do with waste water? Of course once you have H2 you have to confront the inefficiency of fuel cells to make power (maybe 40% currently for static industrial power generation and less for a mobile application). Straight electrolysis is a bad idea, a non-starter There is a serious paper linked here: https://www.google.com/search?q=microbial+electrolysis+cell+review&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS481US481&oq=MICROBIAL+ELECTROLYSIS+CELL&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4724j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Cor van de Water via EV 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 > Chief Scientist > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM > To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min > for7 credits > > You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current > emissions of either criteria or GHGs. Again, check the results from the > GREET model. > > Every responsible agency that I work with locally believe that you > CANNOT meet public health standards or GHG goals without both BEVs and > FCEVs. > > We need a 60%+ decrease in NOx emissions to meet current standards, > which data indicates are inadequate, and we expect will be tightened > further. > > In a short time, most purchased autos will need to be ZEVs. That means > that people like Peri, who has identified range issues as necessitating > his own ICE in addition to a BEV, will need to forget the ICE. For some, > that will mean BEVs, for some FCEVs, for some hybrids, and (IMO), > combinations of those as technology progresses. > > We need ZEVs of all flavors. > > Sorry for your pain, but it's all self-induced as well as hindering > efforts of those that know what they're doing. The fanboy stuff isn't > productive for those of us doing real work. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Cor van de Water via EV > wrote: > > > > Mark, > > If I am mistaken and you do have an interest in the environment, > > then your words and your actions are in conflict. > > The fact that you are not just promoting Hydrogen but even lobby to > > get legislation that makes it a requirement and the environment be > > damned by the associated increase in CO2 output, makes this all the > > more painful. > > > > Regards, > > > > Cor van de Water > > Chief Scientist > > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:23 AM > > To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in > 15min > > for7 credits > > > > Thank you for falsely stating stating my interest and what I care > about. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Cor van de Water via EV > >> wrote: > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. > >> He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the > > amount > >> of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). > >> He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you > > will > >> understand. > >> >
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
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 Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:27 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits You are horribly mistaken if you believe that FCEVs increase current emissions of either criteria or GHGs. Again, check the results from the GREET model. Every responsible agency that I work with locally believe that you CANNOT meet public health standards or GHG goals without both BEVs and FCEVs. We need a 60%+ decrease in NOx emissions to meet current standards, which data indicates are inadequate, and we expect will be tightened further. In a short time, most purchased autos will need to be ZEVs. That means that people like Peri, who has identified range issues as necessitating his own ICE in addition to a BEV, will need to forget the ICE. For some, that will mean BEVs, for some FCEVs, for some hybrids, and (IMO), combinations of those as technology progresses. We need ZEVs of all flavors. Sorry for your pain, but it's all self-induced as well as hindering efforts of those that know what they're doing. The fanboy stuff isn't productive for those of us doing real work. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: > > Mark, > If I am mistaken and you do have an interest in the environment, > then your words and your actions are in conflict. > The fact that you are not just promoting Hydrogen but even lobby to > get legislation that makes it a requirement and the environment be > damned by the associated increase in CO2 output, makes this all the > more painful. > > Regards, > > Cor van de Water > Chief Scientist > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:23 AM > To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min > for7 credits > > Thank you for falsely stating stating my interest and what I care about. > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Cor van de Water via EV >> wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. >> He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the > amount >> of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). >> He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you > will >> understand. >> >> I urge all members of this forum to once again adhere to the earlier >> decision to avoid Hydrogen as a topic, because it is explosive. >> >> Cor van de Water >> Chief Scientist >> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com >> Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info >> Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock >> via EV >> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 10:58 AM >> To: Mark Abramowitz >> Cc: Electric Vehicle Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in > 15min >> for7 credits >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mark Abramowitz >> wrote: >> >>> I've seen an animation of such a device for natural gas dispensing, >> and am told it could just as easily be done for hydrogen. >> >> How does that address what I said? I've seen animations of the >> Incredible Hulk, that doesn't support the proposition that it could >> "just as easily be done for X." >> >>> But we know that whatever is being talked about... trip to the moon, >> world peace, cold fusion... you will be certain that it is "simpler, >> cheaper, a
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Mark, If I am mistaken and you do have an interest in the environment, then your words and your actions are in conflict. The fact that you are not just promoting Hydrogen but even lobby to get legislation that makes it a requirement and the environment be damned by the associated increase in CO2 output, makes this all the more painful. Regards, Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 8:23 AM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits Thank you for falsely stating stating my interest and what I care about. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Cor van de Water via EV wrote: > > Bill, > > Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. > He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the amount > of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). > He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you will > understand. > > I urge all members of this forum to once again adhere to the earlier > decision to avoid Hydrogen as a topic, because it is explosive. > > Cor van de Water > Chief Scientist > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info > Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 > > -Original Message- > From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock > via EV > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 10:58 AM > To: Mark Abramowitz > Cc: Electric Vehicle Discussion List > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min > for7 credits > > > On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mark Abramowitz > wrote: > >> I've seen an animation of such a device for natural gas dispensing, > and am told it could just as easily be done for hydrogen. > > How does that address what I said? I've seen animations of the > Incredible Hulk, that doesn't support the proposition that it could > "just as easily be done for X." > >> But we know that whatever is being talked about... trip to the moon, > world peace, cold fusion... you will be certain that it is "simpler, > cheaper, and easier than hydrogen." > > So, prove me wrong. What is it about hydrogen that you think is easier > to move than electrons? > >-Bill > > > > > -- next part -- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 841 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > URL: > <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140727/a966 > 07fb/attachment.pgp> > ___ > 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) > > ___ 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)
Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits
Bill, Mark has no interest whether it is simpler to use Hydrogen or not. He even does not care that the use of Hydrogen will increase the amount of CO2 being burned (so, it is a disaster for the environment). He is promoting Hydrogen - that is all. Look up his profile and you will understand. I urge all members of this forum to once again adhere to the earlier decision to avoid Hydrogen as a topic, because it is explosive. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock via EV Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 10:58 AM To: Mark Abramowitz Cc: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Tesla might Supercharge EVs to regain 400mi in 15min for7 credits On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mark Abramowitz wrote: > I've seen an animation of such a device for natural gas dispensing, and am told it could just as easily be done for hydrogen. How does that address what I said? I've seen animations of the Incredible Hulk, that doesn't support the proposition that it could "just as easily be done for X." > But we know that whatever is being talked about... trip to the moon, world peace, cold fusion... you will be certain that it is "simpler, cheaper, and easier than hydrogen." So, prove me wrong. What is it about hydrogen that you think is easier to move than electrons? -Bill -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140727/a966 07fb/attachment.pgp> ___ 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)
