[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
BBC: Honda set to close Swindon factory in 2022
More.......................
Nikkei: Honda enters agreement with CATL for battery supply contract through 2027
More.......................
Acura Marks 30 Years Since Debut of Iconic NSX Supercar
More.......................
American Honda reports January sales
More.......................
Acura Marks 15th Anniversary of Super Handling All-Wheel Drive™
More.......................
Honda releases pricing and EPA information for 2019 Passport
More.......................
American Honda Reports December Sales
More.......................
American Honda Reports November Sales
More.......................
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2019 Pre-Season Testing - Days 1-4
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Swindon in peril
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Timid AHM marketing
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda Loses a $38 Million Liability Lawsuit
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Poor reliability scores for Honda and Acura
Join Discussion......
TOV Asia --> Re: Honda JP Sales 2018: Hybrids make up 55% of reg. cars
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda's new sub-brand Honda e
Join Discussion......
Amateur Racing & Driving --> Re: My first helmet !
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Honda closing UK plant that builds the Type R
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Original NSX prototype only had a SOHC V6 without VTEC
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Rumours that Honda will close its Swindon plant
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Sunny came home with a mission
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: 2019 F1 Releases/Launches
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Type R bike carrier
Join Discussion......
2019 Honda Passport PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > General Talk > > Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 [2]
Author
  Post New Thread
JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 13:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
tomek wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
tomek wrote:
... The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.



My '14 and '15 Accord iMMD sedans had a per tank range of almost 600 miles and I could refuel them like a normal car.

And, they had that deep down instant torque and throttle response of an EV.

Honestly, serial hybrids are the future. And the past, just check out the US railroads. Those locomotives in the West are all diesel-electric hybrids for a very good reason.

FCEVs are likely the best second compromise.



Hybrids definitely offer a good compromise to get more range and quick refueling combined with brake regen and urban electric operation. My thinking is that as battery costs continue to decline (currently 10-20%/yr), the electric proportion of hybrids will continue to increase with each model cycle until we arrive at full electric for most models.

Hydrogen is another interesting technology except 2x electricity required (vs bev) because of higher losses down the chain. The costs are coming down as well though, the Mirai is ~$60k. Do you know if that covers production cost or are they losing money on each like some have claimed?



Going from what we've been told, FCEVs are getting close to being "break even" at that ~$60k price point now and we've also been told that the costs are continuing to come down. Honda expects that their next gen FCs which are being developed in conjunction with GM will represent another considerable improvement in cost and performance. I think the bigger issue with FCEV adoption is refueling infrastructure. This is slowly improving, and perhaps the coming wave of Class 8 fuel cell trucks will accelerate this buildout.

The thing about BEVs is that on paper they look great from an efficiency perspective (under blue sky conditions) but check the real world reports of the new wave of first-time BEV owners who are seeing and reporting massive "vampire drain" in winter weather conditions as well as significant losses in actual driving range. So it would be interesting to see how well that assumed 2x advantage truly holds up.

tomek
Profile for tomek
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 13:26
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
90 mile BEVs are useless. In the US we refer to them as "compliance specials", since in the northern part of the United States, most fall significantly short of their mileage ratings. During the winter, range cuts down to half.

"Nobody is saying run electric vehicles powered by coal", except this is the reality right now. The United States isn't even the worst instigator, since China, Germany, et al. are still using a substantial amount of coal. You can clearly see that BEV benefits depending on how electricity is generated.

tomek wrote:
For the higher levelized cost - the cost equation between bev and combustion would change significantly if there were a price/market for emissions. Like I have said several times on this thread, without this you cannot possibly have a fair comparison. In addition, the cost of bev is improving quickly (10-20%/yr cost decline for batteries) whereas the cost of combustion is stagnant, the case for which is weaker by the minute.



So you're saying that in order for BEVs to be considered cost competitive, an artificial market needs to be introduced to get a fair comparison? Sounds oppressive, especially to poor people.



A very large proportion of daily commutes (~>90%, I could be off on that) are less than 30mi each way. The car can be recharged every night at home. So again, I fail to see how this does not fit the application.

I am aware of temp effects on vehicles, I live in Ontario, but thanks for the cold weather warning. Combustion cars also burn more quite a lot more fuel in cold weather. A local friend of mine received his model 3 this fall and his low temp penalty was 30-40% on -15C days. That temp is a fairly low proportion of days, even in ON.

You are running in circles here, again the long-term goal is to have electric vehicles powered by low emissions electricity to reduce overall emissions, it is a target or a path, you start from somewhere. That is like saying I want to weigh less but today I am at 400lb so there is no point in trying. Lets not mix in useless semantics, it is not an overnight solution.

Emissions have a cost to society, therefore they should be priced, yes that is what I am saying. It is a market, which you could consider to be artificial in that it is created by humans, just like any other market like stock market, or your local farmers market. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

It is well documented that emissions and environmental issues have a dis-proportionally high negative effect on lower income folks. It is oppressive to ignore these biases. Since higher income folks generate more emissions, they should bear more of the cost to reduce. Sounds like justice to me.

tomek
Profile for tomek
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 14:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JeffX wrote:
tomek wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
tomek wrote:
... The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.



My '14 and '15 Accord iMMD sedans had a per tank range of almost 600 miles and I could refuel them like a normal car.

And, they had that deep down instant torque and throttle response of an EV.

Honestly, serial hybrids are the future. And the past, just check out the US railroads. Those locomotives in the West are all diesel-electric hybrids for a very good reason.

FCEVs are likely the best second compromise.



Hybrids definitely offer a good compromise to get more range and quick refueling combined with brake regen and urban electric operation. My thinking is that as battery costs continue to decline (currently 10-20%/yr), the electric proportion of hybrids will continue to increase with each model cycle until we arrive at full electric for most models.

Hydrogen is another interesting technology except 2x electricity required (vs bev) because of higher losses down the chain. The costs are coming down as well though, the Mirai is ~$60k. Do you know if that covers production cost or are they losing money on each like some have claimed?



Going from what we've been told, FCEVs are getting close to being "break even" at that ~$60k price point now and we've also been told that the costs are continuing to come down. Honda expects that their next gen FCs which are being developed in conjunction with GM will represent another considerable improvement in cost and performance. I think the bigger issue with FCEV adoption is refueling infrastructure. This is slowly improving, and perhaps the coming wave of Class 8 fuel cell trucks will accelerate this buildout.

The thing about BEVs is that on paper they look great from an efficiency perspective (under blue sky conditions) but check the real world reports of the new wave of first-time BEV owners who are seeing and reporting massive "vampire drain" in winter weather conditions as well as significant losses in actual driving range. So it would be interesting to see how well that assumed 2x advantage truly holds up.




Interesting, thanks. Sounds like they are really making progress. H2 has advantage (vs bev) for fueling time and range so makes sense there is interest from trucking industry.

The efficiency advantage is pretty well tested, bev's get ~2/3 conversion plug to wheels, while electrolysis is ~2/3 efficient but the fuel cell itself is 50% so total is 1/3 for H2. Definitely there will be an efficiency hit for bev, but this is more fringe conditions rather then mainstream. Meaning, mostly for cases in the north that wake up to -15C 1-2 dozen times per year. Also, Im sure the fuel cell will have temp effects as well.


CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 16:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
tomek wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
90 mile BEVs are useless. In the US we refer to them as "compliance specials", since in the northern part of the United States, most fall significantly short of their mileage ratings. During the winter, range cuts down to half.

"Nobody is saying run electric vehicles powered by coal", except this is the reality right now. The United States isn't even the worst instigator, since China, Germany, et al. are still using a substantial amount of coal. You can clearly see that BEV benefits depending on how electricity is generated.

tomek wrote:
For the higher levelized cost - the cost equation between bev and combustion would change significantly if there were a price/market for emissions. Like I have said several times on this thread, without this you cannot possibly have a fair comparison. In addition, the cost of bev is improving quickly (10-20%/yr cost decline for batteries) whereas the cost of combustion is stagnant, the case for which is weaker by the minute.



So you're saying that in order for BEVs to be considered cost competitive, an artificial market needs to be introduced to get a fair comparison? Sounds oppressive, especially to poor people.



A very large proportion of daily commutes (~>90%, I could be off on that) are less than 30mi each way. The car can be recharged every night at home. So again, I fail to see how this does not fit the application.

I am aware of temp effects on vehicles, I live in Ontario, but thanks for the cold weather warning. Combustion cars also burn more quite a lot more fuel in cold weather. A local friend of mine received his model 3 this fall and his low temp penalty was 30-40% on -15C days. That temp is a fairly low proportion of days, even in ON.

You are running in circles here, again the long-term goal is to have electric vehicles powered by low emissions electricity to reduce overall emissions, it is a target or a path, you start from somewhere. That is like saying I want to weigh less but today I am at 400lb so there is no point in trying. Lets not mix in useless semantics, it is not an overnight solution.

Emissions have a cost to society, therefore they should be priced, yes that is what I am saying. It is a market, which you could consider to be artificial in that it is created by humans, just like any other market like stock market, or your local farmers market. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

It is well documented that emissions and environmental issues have a dis-proportionally high negative effect on lower income folks. It is oppressive to ignore these biases. Since higher income folks generate more emissions, they should bear more of the cost to reduce. Sounds like justice to me.



So 30 mile range each way. You lose 30-40% of your range on cold days. That means your 90 mile range goes down to 54-63 miles? Are you expecting people to push their cars the last few miles into their garage a certain proportion of winter?

I already said this several times in other threads, but I'm looking at a minimum 100 mile "absolute worst case range", so I can at least go to work and then do at least one more activity before being forced to charge it for the rest the night. That's why the "210 mile" BEV is a realistic standard. That also means that if I wanted to drive to a town 4 hours away, I can realistically get away with one recharge, rather than 2-3.

The point isn't that rich people are paying for it. Any time you create an artificial market, you also have people who game the system. That means that while the rich are able to pay to be able to pollute, guess where that pollution is generated? Poor neighbourhoods around plants. And guess who can least afford to pay the extra costs? Poor people. All you're doing is shifting the problem.

It's also ironic that this is coming from a Ontarian. Thanks to a decade of bad policy (despite good intentions, and I AM glad that Nanticoke is gone), Ontario pays some the highest electricity rates in the country, despite generating an excess of it. Guess who gets punished more by this? Probably not your Model 3 owning friend, but maybe the blue collar family in Oshawa who has to decide how much they can lower their heat this winter in order to pay the bills.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 16:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JeffX wrote:
tomek wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
tomek wrote:
... The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.



My '14 and '15 Accord iMMD sedans had a per tank range of almost 600 miles and I could refuel them like a normal car.

And, they had that deep down instant torque and throttle response of an EV.

Honestly, serial hybrids are the future. And the past, just check out the US railroads. Those locomotives in the West are all diesel-electric hybrids for a very good reason.

FCEVs are likely the best second compromise.



Hybrids definitely offer a good compromise to get more range and quick refueling combined with brake regen and urban electric operation. My thinking is that as battery costs continue to decline (currently 10-20%/yr), the electric proportion of hybrids will continue to increase with each model cycle until we arrive at full electric for most models.

Hydrogen is another interesting technology except 2x electricity required (vs bev) because of higher losses down the chain. The costs are coming down as well though, the Mirai is ~$60k. Do you know if that covers production cost or are they losing money on each like some have claimed?



Going from what we've been told, FCEVs are getting close to being "break even" at that ~$60k price point now and we've also been told that the costs are continuing to come down. Honda expects that their next gen FCs which are being developed in conjunction with GM will represent another considerable improvement in cost and performance. I think the bigger issue with FCEV adoption is refueling infrastructure. This is slowly improving, and perhaps the coming wave of Class 8 fuel cell trucks will accelerate this buildout.

The thing about BEVs is that on paper they look great from an efficiency perspective (under blue sky conditions) but check the real world reports of the new wave of first-time BEV owners who are seeing and reporting massive "vampire drain" in winter weather conditions as well as significant losses in actual driving range. So it would be interesting to see how well that assumed 2x advantage truly holds up.



In areas with large powergrid capacity spikes over baseload (wind and solar), a lot of that extra energy isn't always used. This is an issue that China is currently experiencing. One proposal is to use that extra energy for electrolysis, so even if 'well-to-wheel' transmissions aren't the most efficient, it's not like it really matters.

tomek
Profile for tomek
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 17:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
tomek wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
90 mile BEVs are useless. In the US we refer to them as "compliance specials", since in the northern part of the United States, most fall significantly short of their mileage ratings. During the winter, range cuts down to half.

"Nobody is saying run electric vehicles powered by coal", except this is the reality right now. The United States isn't even the worst instigator, since China, Germany, et al. are still using a substantial amount of coal. You can clearly see that BEV benefits depending on how electricity is generated.

tomek wrote:
For the higher levelized cost - the cost equation between bev and combustion would change significantly if there were a price/market for emissions. Like I have said several times on this thread, without this you cannot possibly have a fair comparison. In addition, the cost of bev is improving quickly (10-20%/yr cost decline for batteries) whereas the cost of combustion is stagnant, the case for which is weaker by the minute.



So you're saying that in order for BEVs to be considered cost competitive, an artificial market needs to be introduced to get a fair comparison? Sounds oppressive, especially to poor people.



A very large proportion of daily commutes (~>90%, I could be off on that) are less than 30mi each way. The car can be recharged every night at home. So again, I fail to see how this does not fit the application.

I am aware of temp effects on vehicles, I live in Ontario, but thanks for the cold weather warning. Combustion cars also burn more quite a lot more fuel in cold weather. A local friend of mine received his model 3 this fall and his low temp penalty was 30-40% on -15C days. That temp is a fairly low proportion of days, even in ON.

You are running in circles here, again the long-term goal is to have electric vehicles powered by low emissions electricity to reduce overall emissions, it is a target or a path, you start from somewhere. That is like saying I want to weigh less but today I am at 400lb so there is no point in trying. Lets not mix in useless semantics, it is not an overnight solution.

Emissions have a cost to society, therefore they should be priced, yes that is what I am saying. It is a market, which you could consider to be artificial in that it is created by humans, just like any other market like stock market, or your local farmers market. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

It is well documented that emissions and environmental issues have a dis-proportionally high negative effect on lower income folks. It is oppressive to ignore these biases. Since higher income folks generate more emissions, they should bear more of the cost to reduce. Sounds like justice to me.



So 30 mile range each way. You lose 30-40% of your range on cold days. That means your 90 mile range goes down to 54-63 miles? Are you expecting people to push their cars the last few miles into their garage a certain proportion of winter?

I already said this several times in other threads, but I'm looking at a minimum 100 mile "absolute worst case range", so I can at least go to work and then do at least one more activity before being forced to charge it for the rest the night. That's why the "210 mile" BEV is a realistic standard. That also means that if I wanted to drive to a town 4 hours away, I can realistically get away with one recharge, rather than 2-3.

The point isn't that rich people are paying for it. Any time you create an artificial market, you also have people who game the system. That means that while the rich are able to pay to be able to pollute, guess where that pollution is generated? Poor neighbourhoods around plants. And guess who can least afford to pay the extra costs? Poor people. All you're doing is shifting the problem.

It's also ironic that this is coming from a Ontarian. Thanks to a decade of bad policy (despite good intentions, and I AM glad that Nanticoke is gone), Ontario pays some the highest electricity rates in the country, despite generating an excess of it. Guess who gets punished more by this? Probably not your Model 3 owning friend, but maybe the blue collar family in Oshawa who has to decide how much they can lower their heat this winter in order to pay the bills.



You are nitpicking sementics again - yes I am expecting people to push their cars in the winter, I am just that stupid. Thanks for proving me wrong with the brilliant mathematics. First off, those -15C days are fringe occurrences for the broad population, maybe 1-2 dozen occurrences per year for northern climates. I am demonstrating that there are a lot of applications where 90 mi is sufficient, such as most urban travel, not that every single last persons needs will be met by this. Or how about charging at the destination? I know its an extreme concept. But go ahead and increase the range for some applications to 100, 150, 200, whatever makes you happy, this doesn't change the point that BEV or H2 vehicles are the lowest on the range of the emissions chart using clean electricity supply. And the biomass "pyrolysis" fuel for combustion vehicles is an absurd idea. If you think mining minerals for batteries is a challenge then this is much worse, we are not going to clearcut the entire rain forest. So BEV and H2 win on emissions. Case closed.

Yes people try to game markets, and have been since the beginning of time, that is why we have market mitigation rules. In specific situations regulators step in to address injustices such as prevention of cartels and monopoly power. Again, what is your point? This is normal protocol. Should we abolish the currency markets and go back to barter because someone might try to game it? And what is with this artificial market thing again. Im still not sure what you mean by that as opposed to a natural market. All markets are man-made.

I think there is a flaw with your logic on the emissions market - it is not shifting the problem - those plants are already polluting before there is a market, except that with the market they are disincentived to do so. It is not paying to pollute, it is the being incentivized to go to a lower emitting method of energy conversion. Same concept as when oil prices spike and the auto makers get off their a$$ and miraculously come up with fuel efficiency improvements. The profit motive really is a magical thing.

There are two parts to the Ontario story. The first is pretty straight forward, for all the talk about renewables, it is the nuclear plant contracts that make up most of the electricity cost. They refurbed the nuke units at ~$60-80/MWh which is a fairly good value considering it is emissions free. The other part of the story is borderline criminal corruption of handing out contracts to build gas plants then cancelling the projects part way through while the construction firms keep the money, which as sad as it was has nothing to do with what we are discussing about energy economics.

In the end Ontario has one of the cleanest grids on the planet so yes rates are a bit higher but at least it is easier to breath. And that really is the key point, all this entrenched pro-fossil fuel philosophy while healthcare costs escalate sharply, and who is at the wrong end of that equation? Not the rich folk.

tomek
Profile for tomek
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 18:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
JeffX wrote:
tomek wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
tomek wrote:
... The reality is that the economics of BEV are improving quickly so these arguments will be under increasing pressure moving forward.



My '14 and '15 Accord iMMD sedans had a per tank range of almost 600 miles and I could refuel them like a normal car.

And, they had that deep down instant torque and throttle response of an EV.

Honestly, serial hybrids are the future. And the past, just check out the US railroads. Those locomotives in the West are all diesel-electric hybrids for a very good reason.

FCEVs are likely the best second compromise.



Hybrids definitely offer a good compromise to get more range and quick refueling combined with brake regen and urban electric operation. My thinking is that as battery costs continue to decline (currently 10-20%/yr), the electric proportion of hybrids will continue to increase with each model cycle until we arrive at full electric for most models.

Hydrogen is another interesting technology except 2x electricity required (vs bev) because of higher losses down the chain. The costs are coming down as well though, the Mirai is ~$60k. Do you know if that covers production cost or are they losing money on each like some have claimed?



Going from what we've been told, FCEVs are getting close to being "break even" at that ~$60k price point now and we've also been told that the costs are continuing to come down. Honda expects that their next gen FCs which are being developed in conjunction with GM will represent another considerable improvement in cost and performance. I think the bigger issue with FCEV adoption is refueling infrastructure. This is slowly improving, and perhaps the coming wave of Class 8 fuel cell trucks will accelerate this buildout.

The thing about BEVs is that on paper they look great from an efficiency perspective (under blue sky conditions) but check the real world reports of the new wave of first-time BEV owners who are seeing and reporting massive "vampire drain" in winter weather conditions as well as significant losses in actual driving range. So it would be interesting to see how well that assumed 2x advantage truly holds up.



In areas with large powergrid capacity spikes over baseload (wind and solar), a lot of that extra energy isn't always used. This is an issue that China is currently experiencing. One proposal is to use that extra energy for electrolysis, so even if 'well-to-wheel' transmissions aren't the most efficient, it's not like it really matters.



It does matter because there is still a cost to generate that extra electricity. The lower efficiency of H2 already includes the losses of electrolysis. No matter how you slice it will take ~2x electricity generated to propel the same H2 car down the same road as an equivalent bev car. Another way to look at it is the electrolysis+fuel cell is just an electricity storage device, which is equivalent in function to a battery except with twice the losses. What you might be getting at is that H2 can be generated and stored in times of electricity excess, but the battery can also absorb from the grid. The comparison really comes down to what is lower lifetime all-in cost per energy units consumed from storage by the end user including capital and operating costs - electrolysis+fuel cell or a battery. It is probably battery today and declining rapidly so H2 really has to get to bigger scale quickly to not go the way of beta vs vhs.


CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 19:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I mean, the alternative to using that excess electricity is building grids of batteries to store it, which is less practical. We're talking about using electricity that is otherwise wasted.
tomek
Profile for tomek
Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-16-2019 21:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
I mean, the alternative to using that excess electricity is building grids of batteries to store it, which is less practical. We're talking about using electricity that is otherwise wasted.


I think we are saying something similar but from a different angle - when there is excess, storage is required. The options for storage are either battery or electrolysis+fuel cell. The mechanisms are slightly different because the battery can be in the car or at utility grid scale. A lot of cars plugged in at once would serve to either charge at either a slower or faster rate, providing the same effect as electorlysis. That mechanism exists either way, except the electrolysis is at the large/utility scale and the battery is at the car level. This is a large optimization problem and will depend on capital, operating, source energy costs for both cases. So the hydrogen option would have to have lower all-in capital+operating to make up for higher source energy requirements.


 
Thread Page - 1 [2]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
30 mobile: 0