Electric vehicles during a disaster

[Nikkorott]

I think much of this thread and posters understand that EV are an interim solution, at least in the US and rural areas.
I'd written in a previous post (weeks ago) that I think hydrogen, once practical storage is determined, is the fuel of the future for vehicles

Hydrogen is the obvious solution until you learn a bit more about hydrogen. From a safety standpoint hydrogen is horrible. Auto ignite temperature is around 900F. There are a things on ICE vehicles that run hotter than that. That means fire potential is huge. The real scary thing about a hydrogen fire is you can't see it in daylight. Can you imagine a fleet of vehicles cruising around with an open flame? There are some physical problems with using hydrogen (Like hydrogen embrittlement) as well.

At some point we'll see solid state batteries. When that happens EVs will be everything.

 

[/pine]

IMO...much of the monies spent on trying to develop better batteries...the funds should be being spent on developing other alternative technologies...
skeptics always want to point out the negatives of hydrogen...
Perhaps it will take AI to come up with the technology to separate hydrogen from water (on the vehicle) but this type of technology is what is required...not trying to store tank fulls of hydrogen...
IMO EVs will never become the norm as long as they use rechargeable batteries...unless of course the technology for self charging batteries is developed...

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

Yep, your electric bill will go up. Your gasoline bill will go down.

Most EV owners will tell you that the savings spent on getting them from point A to point B is much more costly with gas VS electric.

Yes, there will be electric infrastructure that will have to be built/upgraded. And yes, those costs will go on to consumers like you and me.

I don’t think you and I will have to worry that much about those costs in the near future, as ICE vehicle sales aren’t expected to peak until 2035. So we still have time to make changes and adjustments. And, there’ll still be hundreds of millions of ICE cars on the road for a few decades.

I sure hope so since my wife & I have plenty of old ice vehicles in the garage.

 

[Gee Ray]

Are people who evacuate really going that far? What's the typical evacuation? 50 miles maybe? Unlike an ICE, an EV does not use power unless it's moving, so getting stuck in a huge traffic jam is just a delay.

when they say a storm is going to hit the southern part of Florida the people in Miami Naples etc. start heading north. It can be three or 400 miles to get away from the storm. The problem is the sheer volume of traffic on the highways. There have been times that they’ve shut the southbound lanes and the interstates down and turned them around so that people could travel north.

As the first evacuees get to a safe zone they rent the motel rooms up thus the later arrivals need to move further north which makes for even longer distance traveled.

Gasoline becomes very hard to find. Fuel trucks are often escorted by the police Or state patrol. it turns into a real mess as people realize they’re going to get caught in the storm while sitting in a car.

As the traffic becomes in tangled the travel time to Georgia from Tampa can go from less than three hours to over a day. It really doesn’t matter what kind of car you have it becomes a problem. But as of now there are a few

 

[ponytug]

I think much of this thread and posters understand that EV are an interim solution, at least in the US and rural areas.
I'd written in a previous post (weeks ago) that I think hydrogen, once practical storage is determined, is the fuel of the future for vehicles

I am sorry Roy, but I have to disagree with you on the utility of hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

Folks have been working on hydrogen storage for longer than I have been around, which is a while. I wouldn't hold your breath for "practical storage". There is quite a bit of physics that makes it hard. (Low density, in both liquid and gaseous forms, lack of both aromatic Ita and polarity, high diffusion rate, and of course flammability.) It had a chance in the '70s, maybe, but it didn't make it. It had another chance in the '90s with fuel cells, but didn't make it then, either. At this point, possible storage materials have been extensively researched, and nothing is within orders of magnitude of vehicle requirements, which are pretty stringent in terms of miles/tank, and miles/lb of storage material.

Safety wise, it is a nightmare. Hydrogen can go through 1/4" steel due to micro cracks that are omnipresent. It is an explosion hazard, with flammability range from 4%-75%, and a detonation range from 18.3-59%. Try working to keep hydrogen in somewhere and out of somewhere else, and then let's have a discussion. It is a tough element to work with just because of its size and physical properties. BTDT.

I'm confident that renewable hydrogen will get used to make steel, and a few other industrial uses at scale, but as a replacement for gasoline...I don't see it, ever. If you want a transportation fuel, use hydrogen reduce carbon dioxide to make DME, which is a liquid under mild pressure. That you can put in a fuel tank at reasonable density, and it runs like diesel.

For the next generation or two, it is fossil fuel or EVs. Anything else requires enormous investments in specialized infrastructure, which won't happen until there is both a good proof of concept, and a need that can't be effectively met another way. Hydrogen as transportation fuel lacks both today, and probably won't ever have a role transportation as there there are, and will be continue to be usable alternatives.

All the best,

Peter

 

[/pine]

Don't write off fuel cells (and or hydrogen etc.) just yet...there are already cars available to the public that run on fuel cells...we know the technology works...and some vehicle manufacturers are investing in the R&D required to perfect the technology and make it safe for typical consumer use...
...Be it hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion devices etc., etc...alternatives to "grid" based power are real and will eventually replace megawatt power plants...

 

[RoyJackson]

I am sorry Roy, but I have to disagree with you on the utility of hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

Never a complaint!!
The technology today...maybe hydrogen isn't the best choice.
A few years ago, fusion power was impossible, but look where we are today. Might be 10-20 years, but fusion will be viable.
10-20 years hence, perhaps hydrogen power for vehicles will be too
I just don't see EVs, with their limitations, being a long-term solution...but, who knows?

 

[JasperFrank]

"Hydrogen can go through 1/4" steel due to micro cracks that are omnipresent."

Damn! You said it first, Peter!

Its the smallest atom, so it sort of leaks through other materials attempting to contain it. The person that can invent a hydrogen barrier... will be rich. Water is a perfect battery, completely stable combined, yet high energy once separated in small qualities to use.

 

[ponytug]

Personally, I expect batteries, and motors to evolve fairly quickly in the next decade or two, as the current innovation rate is high and the translation time for technology to go from research is pretty short, e.g. a decade. (It isn't software!)

Call me jaded in fusion, too. I had money in a basically unknown, but quite successful fusion startup in the early '70s. They managed to hit energy break even, and we're getting close to engineering break even, when the brilliant founder and innovator had a heart attack and died. As far as I can tell the rest of the world is almost where they were, fifty years later. FWIW: The world is running out of tritium, so unless a bunch of breeder reactors are fired up, there won't be enough of a supply of tritium to run fusion reactors. Even with fusion reactors, there is still the issue of what to do with all of the irradiated containment vessel material after two, five, ten years, whatever their lifetime is. I know that I wouldn't want to be involved in the smelting and re-refining of highly radioactive metals at scale.

Don't get me wrong, I will be happy to see economies powered by something other than fossil fuels, whatever that energy source is, as long as it is cleaner and sustainable for the future.

All the best,

Peter

 

[/pine]

Regardless of the elements or compounds...all the negatives are rooted in current technology...
...as long as batteries have to be charged off the grid they will always be a temporary solution...and not necessarily the best one...
Again...investing in temporary solutions is not the prudent thing to do and that is the case with rechargeable batteries...the money being invested should be spent on longer lasting or more permanent solutions that are not just relying on fossil fuels to keep batteries charged...!