You guys are really willing to drink the Green Kool-aid, aren't you.
1) Hydrogen, as I stated, has a storage issue. You claim that the energy density is lowest...based on what exactly? The storage medium is not set, therefor your claims are remarkably ignorant. STP hydrogen is extremely low energy density...but that's a hugely stupid assertion.
2) EVs are stupid. Period. You name me the company that's recycling the batteries, and I'll name you a company that's deep into governmental incentive programs. Don't believe me, then go ahead and try. I'll wait, but not hold my breath.
3) Let's just look at the price of EV battery replacement. Not the Musk BS, but the real cost. 13k USD. Cool. You replace them at about 70% capacity...so let's just give you a 10 year lifespan. What's the cost of a new engine and transmission for a regular ICE engine? Let's assume high at about 3,400 for the transmission...or about 6k for the transmission and engine. That's for a BMW...so about half the cost. Cool.... Let's also do the math on that lithium recycling instead of a basic steel and aluminum recycle...wow. It's great that this is a "better" solution. It's better in the same way that an EV is better in the snow...or heat...or really any inclement weather.
4) You...are...an...idiot...if...you...think...ICE...is...worse...for...the...environment....overall. I said it slow, so you can let it sink in. If you don't get it, let me explain it. Neodymium, copper, and gold. Rare earths that are insanely difficult to remove from the earth, primarily harvested in China. To be fair, ICE uses platinum in the catalytic converter...in quantities so small that it's a joke. Once you combine most energy being generated from hydrocarbon sources, you suddenly see that ICE is evil...but less evil than EV. Excuse me, but the "feel good" math required to make EV look awesome is also the admission you are incapable of critical thinking. Period.
5) You are reading words into what I say that aren't there. This is called a strawman...I figure that I have to explain this because you're either acting in bad faith or not thinking. I'd like to assume bad faith, as it's not assuming ignorance. Now, lower energy density requires lower weights to create the same range...you're making up an argument. My wording was that decreased energy density was a problem... If you want to assume that lower ranges are fine then you've had golf carts for decades. Buy one of those, and stop talking. I assume my vehicle's range because travel is required. There are already people who use electric vehicles exclusively, and have been doing so for decades. If you want an example go to Florida, and see one of the golf course communities. No car, but an electric golf cart, and everything is fine. In the adult world, where travel is expected, having to stop every 4-5 hours for multiple hours is what we like to call burning money.
6) On the other side of 5, trucks. The semi kind. Where is the Tesla semi in use? That's where the extensive charging network is. Cool. It's a bunch of opportunity...unless you're a trucker. Note that the average trucker is bound to an amount of hours...so pulling to the side and charging something is burning money. It's expected they can drive for hours without stopping...and it's why extended volume tanks exist. Still, you want to make a strawman that "electric doesn't have to have the range of ICE..." and all I can ask is how you expect OTR trucking to function with an EV replacement.
7) "It's a fallacy" is a great argument against your strawman. Against what I said, this is baby putting both fingers in their ears and screaming they can't hear me. EVs are a great patch for people who want government to make things affordable, or for those who are within the limited window of viability for their use. Florida is living proof that it's fine...and I even think there's a city in Georgia that does the same. That said, it's not a solution. It's a crutch. Crutches are fine...unless you actually want to solve the issue. Thing is, you don't need to believe me. Our very left leaning higher learning institutions are already highlighting this...so it's not about politics. It's about reality. Read here:
Harvard article about Rare Earth Extraction
______________
1) Current Li-ion, in labs, is that high. Not so much everyday sources. That's, in fact, 269 Wh/kg:
Tesla Battery Article
2) It's great you want to bring up efficiency. Let me do the real math. Hydrocarbon burned, to heat steam to supercritical temperature, to turn turbine. Most of heat vented to outside world...turbine has efficiency. Power is converted...which is about 98% efficient. Power is sent along lines...which vary wildly in efficiency. Power is received and transformed, again losing efficiency. It then feeds into a charger, that loses efficiency, which charges a battery, that loses efficiency, which then feeds into a motor that loses efficiency. Note the hydrocarbons most often used to create electricity are still part of the chain...you are just ignorant of the efficiency. The counter is energy is used to pump fuel, fuel is used to transport fuel, an ICE engine combusts fuel, and a transmission converts linear pressure into circular movement at an inefficiency. You failed to do all the math, and thus failed to answer why EVs are more feel good than do good.
3) ICE tech is literally evolving at the same speed as batteries. Cylinder idling, ammonium burning, hydrogen burning, and a litany of other tech is out there. Battery tech is evolving incrementally as component are improved with materials science. Note that 1250 Wh/kg is a calcuable maximum value. It's because the chemistry, something as old as Ancient Egypt, is an easy electrochemical potential. You want to claim ICE is dead end...well maybe you should do a little more research.
4) Your efficiency is stupid. Don't misread...I'm actually making an argument for you.
NASA - engine efficiency ICE engines are up to 37% efficient (diesel), and EVs are (assuming our mostly hydrocarbon based current electrical infrastructure) 27%. This is why I note all of that stuff in point 2...and the funny thing is that more energy dense batteries don't fix this...and NASA never covered losses due to weather...and a litany of other things. Neither EVs nor ICE are greatly efficient...but 37% of 12000>>27% of 600. Simplistic math.
______________
You both seem to want to pretend that nothing is easier than EVs. Could I ask you how that's going in a country that basically mandated them, and produced them in enough volume. Specifically China. Insufficient charging infrastructure, so people fight over chargers. Insufficient safety...so cars regularly combust. Cheap price due to subsidies, so you've got more people pulling more power. Just search the term "happy grandpa" and see what a truly EV based solution is.
Me, I'm banking on less stupid feel-good. Amonia, hydrogen, and a few other ICE technologies are the future. They aren't an expensive band-aid to make the rich stupid people feel better, or a governmental program away from viability. This is the same reason I believe ethanol is stupid, bio-diesel is another stepping-stone technology towards a real solution, and the way forward for tech is higher efficiency and lower power, instead of a bigger and more dangerous battery. The literal only exception is if these solid state batteries can perform as promised at affordable levels...in which case we have another better stepping stone...and that's it.
I'll be glad to hear the next whining about how "global warming" is something you're fighting with this. It's extracting rare earths...so it's causing plenty of polution. If your argument is EVs, and by extension the batteries that power them, are better than ICE while primarily powered by burning hydrocarbons then you're just silly. Now if we were all near a nuclear reactor, hydroelectric dam, or some other renewable that wasn't rare earth intensive I'd eat crow...but even NASA's paper above conveniently stated (without calculating transmission losses) that an EV powered this way would reach 40-70% efficient...without citing how they came to that conclusion.
My idea of fighting climate change isn't feel good...I want nuclear. I want sustainable wind and solar. Unfortunately people are squeamish about nuclear and most of wind/solar is either from China or not viable in most locations. Life's a beach...maybe it's time we learn to swim with the nuclear sharks instead of remaining "safe" on the beach where parasitic worms in the sand enter the soles of our feet. Yeah, that's a pained metaphor...but no less painful than the wail of tree-huggers who cannot fathom reality beyond the apparent "goodness" of their message. There's a reason the guy who founded Green Peace left and disavowed them.
Biznews article on Patrick Moore
Let me also state a few things.
1) If high speed rail existed in the US, I'd choose it.
2) If I could get away without using a car, I'd be happy.
3) If Green Energy could supply the power we needed I'd embrace the up-charge.
4) If you ignore anything that isn't in your line of sight Green Energy tech is great...but I'm not an idiot.
5) Increasing battery energy density is great. You should be the first to strap a moltov cocktail to your pants. Me, I like not having a bomb in my pocket.
6) If electric didn't suck so bad, or if I didn't live in a temperature range between 0-100 F, I'd see the value in an EV. As it stands, I see them as large golf carts for the rich. They are not beholden to me on how they spend their money, but if they start trying to shame me I'll call them out on their hypocrisy. Like I've done above. Funny that. You are the one who picked a fight...maybe instead of pretending there's no counter-point you can educate yourselves, and come to the table with a real argument instead of a useless dismissal and feel good propaganda. From one engineer in manufacturing, to you, I suggest that feeling good is stupid unless you're actually doing good.
