LFP is also safer with much less chance for thermal runaway. So safer, cheaper, longer lasting, easier material sourcing, only downside is lower energy density (about 20% hit for same weight) but there is a huge effort to improve that.
You can LFP's pretty cheap now for home backup or RV use. I replaced my RV house batteries with LFP for 4 times the usable capacity in half the weight of my old lead acid for about 3 times the cost. You can get 48v 19" rack batteries very cheap for power backup uses. I think LFP's are going to take over most uses in including cheap commuter automobiles.
LFP gets 2x the cycle count at 100%-0% as a NMC does at 80%-20%. Due to its lower cell voltage it has less voltage driven aging than NMC.
Elon: "I’d personally slightly opt for iron pack, as it wants to be charged to 100%, whereas nickel prefers ~90%."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1431040308943364097?lang...
That said, I'd probably do 90% as the max and 100% on the weekend if I owned an LFP vehicle.
https://insideevs.com/news/514857/mic-tesla-model3-srp-charg...
Personally, I would love if urban planning was structured in a way so that all new development was anti-car, and redevelopment slowly transitioned away from prioritizing automobiles, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.
I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think we can have long lasting and high quality electric cars and also build so that we don't have to rely on cars as much or at all. A lot of people think that reducing reliance on cars means building skyscrapers and density like Manhattan, but it actually means building medium density mixed-use development where biking and walking and perhaps a streetcar are how you accomplish 90%+ of your day-to-day mobility needs. Then you have a car for when you need a car. This means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away, you walk or bike. It means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away because you have a small grocery store in your neighborhood that has everything you need for day-to-day living (you don't need to stock 16 different brands of cereal).
It also has some nice benefits where you can better participate in your local government or other civic institutions. One of the other insidious problems created by automobile-only infrastructure is that it weakens society. You can't protest when you have to figure out where to park first. You can't meet your local representative when you have to pay to park and it's a 30 minute drive each way. Etc.
This pattern has emerged in every city that has a bikeshare or other micromobility scheme: Consumers can dip into the waters and try it out without being "cyclists" and worrying about theft or maintenance. They can put up with poor infrastructure in other respects as a result and use it for the subset of trips where they feel it's appropriate to do so. And the operators(who are in a profitable, growing market) can provide the financial muscle to sway City Hall's policy and make the infrastructure better - because the resulting network growth goes right back into their pockets. And with learning effects, it becomes increasingly easy to deploy at a larger and larger scale. The first few years when these companies emerged and spilled e-scooters all over the streets made for disastrous PR, but their execution has improved greatly since then, with sturdier vehicles, better battery lifetimes, and closer working relationships with cities to address safety.
But society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars, as opposed to disintegrating if we keep using them.
why?
CATL is releasing some LMFP chemistry that will do 200+ wh/kg into production soon.
200 wh/kg with Tesla efficiencies should enable cheap scalable 400+ mile cars (I believe that current cobalt chemistry Tesla batteries can't break 200 wh/kg at the pack level due to thermals, but don't quote me).
And IF the stories about 140 wh/kg sodium ion are true, that may go into production next year, which means a lithium free 200-300 mile car, although I don't know as much about the endurance and thermals of sodium ion chemistries.
Charging infrastructure is now in "ball is rolling" phase. Demand for EVs is high thanks to the gasoline price spike, and LFP/Sodium Ion should in theory enable the cheaper-than-ICE car (not TCO, retail price).
We really need a new volume-independent subsidy. I'm thinking 10,000$ straight rebate (not tax credit) for two years and then it drops 1,000$ per year.
Solid state batteries should be able to take over in 5-10 years, but the new LFP/sodium ion means that big auto should not be as constrained as they were.
Tesla needs to double down on quality, software, and scaling, but I think they'll be fine. Current stock price fine? Eh.
What American auto makers need to concern themselves with is scaling their operations before the Chinese automakers invade the US like they are in Europe.
https://www.timesnownews.com/auto/car-news/article/toyota-mi...
Of course, you can't readily buy or charge one yet, but you don't have the battery problem (at all).
> you don't have the battery problem (at all).
The Mirai still has a small lithium battery like a hybrid since fuel cells cannot put enough instantaneous power (only 128kw and has start up time) for normal driving they need a buffer battery that is recharged by the fuel cell. Since this battery is so small it can't benefit as much from regen like a normal BEV and has pretty poor performance as well (182hp). All this in a car that weighs more than an equivalent BEV due to heavy 10,000 psi hydrogen tanks and complexity with the fuel cell and buffer battery.
I personally believe hydrogen is a dead end for automobiles, the end to end efficiency is much worse (creating and compressing hydrogen) vs just charging a battery not to mention the issues of storing a transporting hydrogen safely [2].
1. https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla-model-3-range-new-hyper...
2. https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydroge...
But note, they do actually have batteries, similar to ICE serial hybrids.
They key thing of course, is that building lots of batteries is not a 'problem', and it's lack of being a problem is exactly why BEVs are better than fuel-cell hydrogen cars for basically everything, except maybe long distance air transport.
The place where BEVs have yet to prove themselves is when energy density is absolutely critical. Long distance transport of any sort (air, sea, train, semi) is really the next places for them.
Semi is a maybe at this point. Train MIGHT make sense, but, IMO it'll probably make the most sense as an energy capture/getting the train up to cruising speed aid rather than as the sole power source. Heck, for train, it'd make sense to instead electrify the rail system. Sea seems unreachable (Sails make more sense at this point which is sort of wild). Air, IDK, there are definitely projects to hit it, but I don't see a large commercial plane doing BEV. Perhaps for smaller regional hops it'll make sense.
> Rapid battery cost declines accelerate the prospects of all-electric interregional container shipping
Europe could pull it off due to its density, but the stretches of American highway which would benefit the most from it, would be a huge challenge.
This is just a start, Hydro Quebec will expand production if demand comes.
As it stands, I will not be buying any EV, you will have a very hard time convincing me otherwise, too many drawbacks to not enough range, ridiculously high charge times, expensive battery repairs, in addition to not being much better than a gasoline vehicle as far as ECO costs.
Just a single government providing grants for h2 refueling infra can dramatically change things.
Japanese car manufacturers aligned on that, but weren’t keen on building the necessary infrastructure.
You could lease a hydrogen fuel cell car in CA. There was even a lot of state incentives if you did. But very few fueling stations (iirc, only two in the whole Bay Area)
Again the scale of hydrogen fueling stations needed would be massive
Larger and more popular gas stations can do about half a million in revenue per month selling gas, which they only have about 2% margin on. Hydrogen has the electric cost eating into margins, but even then it should be pretty profitable and much much higher than 2%.
Although it's a big up front cost commitment, the economics definitely seem feasible if hydrogen fuel cell cars start getting more popular over the next decade or more.
You're wrong.
And claims of energy loss!! Sure, no loss to heat in batteries? And batteries lose charge if they sit idle!
How do I know this? Because you haven't even specified where the h2 came from.
There is power generation from Ng, and there is h2 from Ng. Which do you think is most effective?
Ng -> steam generator -> power transmission -> charging loss
Or, Ng -> h2, delivery, fuel cell (fuel cells are highly efficient)
As an aside:
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/electric-vehicl...
Upgrading fueling stations seems much easier than mining all of the copper needed to add all of the extra lines for EV charging, and then upgrading the whole national grid.
Supposedly one company has claimed 95% efficiency on creating hydrogen from electrolysis:
https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr...
Power that by nuclear energy, and it's a green & clean winner.
Hydrogen is a smart hedge to pursue. But thank goodness it’s mostly Japanese tax dollars doing it.
Why Japan encourages hydrogen is not very related to nuclear (except that the gov want to feed jobs to heavy industry companies that worked on nuclear), but related to lack of every local materials/fuels. I think hydrogen research should be encouraged, but Toyota should release more PHEV/BEVs early.
Their homes were built expecting them to be able to pull 150-200A of power. It doesn't take that much power to charge an EV overnight. Mine charges way faster than it needs to on 32A 240V.
Most of the time it isn't a green fuel at all and is just a way to keep mining coal.
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen
See section on production.
The most commonly used process creates a mixture of steam, hydrogen and CO2. The water is condensed and the CO2 removed to purify the hydrogen product. The CO2 is a concentrated stream. This is sometimes captured and sold as a byproduct (eg food grade CO2 for beverages or dry ice).
https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr...
In the past most catalyst improvements have run into problems with maintenance.
With the added benefit of not requiring an overhaul of the electrical grid to be able to handle everyone charging their cars.
EVs are nice in short term but battery issues like these illustrate their (should be obvious) shortcomings.
WRT to this battery technology, ironically the same sector being targeted by hydrogen might benefit, i.e. rail tech - if you stick a high number of cheap batteries onto a large, heavy motorcar, the energy differential is almost negligible as you make up for it in part through momentum, but also just scale (more passengers transported per watt, more charge available per trip).
Much lower up front investment and none of the huge downsides of nuclear.
Luckily we have an even better option available for transport so we can focus green hydrogen on replacing all the other uses of fossil fuels.
With respect to range anxiety, pretty much every EV in the 200 to 300-mile range is sold out. (I was looking.) And Ford deploying LFP doesn’t mean it has to go 100% LFP in every vehicle. Just having the extra vehicles will win it market share.
(As to why now, the last of the patents in a critical suite expired in April [1]. Steve LeVine writes excellently to this topic [2].)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1167178/000104746912...
[2] https://subscriptions.theinformation.com/newsletters/the-ele...