Electric cars are a pipe dream

a PEM membrane is NOT a RAW material.
[...]
It is one of the key factors in the high cost of Fuel Cells (read the friggin report!!!).

And if you'd been saying that in the first place I wouldn't have had any objection to it. But you weren't, you were saying raw materials were the problem, not manufacturing costs.

Reducing its MANUFACTURING cost is essential to reducing the cost of Fuel Cells (read the friggin report!!!!).

The reports say that the biggest factor in bringing down the manufacturing cost is volume, and the second is r&d. Just like anything else, just like I was saying originally.

What they don't say is what you were claiming, that fuel cells are prohibitively expensive because they contain so much platinum.

I also disagree with your earlier assertion that the platinum couldn't be reclaimed from the plastic sheets.
 
You are obviously not up on the new LENR technology.

You obviously say things for rhetorical effect, rather than actually knowing.

I think many people would drive their $100/month fuel cost car into a lake if an option to buy an e-cat car was there.

Many people would, yes. Although many people would carry on buying thinly disguised tractors with ludicrously overpowered and inefficient engines because they feel it compensates for their penis size/mid life crisis.

I predict all gas cars will be off the road within 10 years. Probably faster. Now that NASA is standing behind LENR the media will soon follow.

It remains to be seen whether NASA (as an organisation, not as a logo in the corner of an unofficial video made by one of their employees about his hobby horse) is standing behind it.

As for all gas cars being dispensed with I find your prediction highly unlikely. Bordering on impossible. Actually, I'm sure enough to dispense the qualifier; just plain impossible.

In fact I bet you a thousand English pounds that doesn't happen. If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is (if that is indeed the orifice from which that assertion issued :p ) just send me a PM and we can arrange for a legally binding wager to that effect for whatever sum you deem appropriate.
 
@ Michael,
Yeah. I suppose there will always be antique cars, but the point is made.

You say it remains to be seen if NASA is behind LENR.

Please open your eyes when viewing this video
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html

Perhaps you did not notice that this is a media release from NASA. Does this look like a Youtube video to you? Can you not spend a full minute investigating the URL of that link to see that it is an official Media release.

Can you not see it is in a "media" sub folder on a NASA website?
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/.......

Are you suggesting that someone hacked a NASA website and coerced a Known NASA LENR researcher into acting on a hoax?

Apparently you are not up on this LENR technology like I said. You made this comment on another thread about this subject.

Michael Taylor - I'd call it confirmed when several independent organisations have collected big piles of data and submitted them as papers for the perusal of the international scientific community.

There are MANY peer reviewed books on LENR, and the WLT, and Beta Decay.
In fact; I'll go further and say that Oxford University has published a peer reviewed BOOK on the subject.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2008-LENR-Sourcebook/LENR-Sourcebook.shtml
(click above to see book link, or to purchase)
 
And if you'd been saying that in the first place I wouldn't have had any objection to it. But you weren't, you were saying raw materials were the problem, not manufacturing costs.

Nope, you said raw materials, and I corrected you many pages ago:

post 2393 said:
Originally Posted by michael_taylor
How much do the raw materials cost? (For the most expensive type you can think of if you like.)
The PEM membrane and the need for Platinum as a catalyst comes to mind.
The cost of the materials used in making fuel cells has always been the thing that has kept the cost high. In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

The reports say that the biggest factor in bringing down the manufacturing cost is volume, and the second is r&d. Just like anything else, just like I was saying originally.

As I pointed out, even at $40 per KW they are still expensive, when that's the price just for the fuel cell and not the supporting drive train and particularly if they can only use H2 as a fuel source, and yes, a lot of that cost is inherent in the materials needed to make them.

What they don't say is what you were claiming, that fuel cells are prohibitively expensive because they contain so much platinum.

I also disagree with your earlier assertion that the platinum couldn't be reclaimed from the plastic sheets.

I never claimed either of those things.
 
@ Michael Taylor,
You are obviously not up on the new LENR technology. I think many people would drive their $100/month fuel cost car into a lake if an option to buy an e-cat car was there.

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
(This is real NASA media release. NASA Scientist, NASA logos, NASA website, it is not youtube.)

I predict all gas cars will be off the road within 10 years. Probably faster. Now that NASA is standing behind LENR the media will soon follow.

Oil companies can be sad if they wish.

Why is it that YOU are making these bold predictions, but if something had been developed by NASA that would get all gas cars off the road in 10 years and pretty much solve our CO2 emission problem at the same time, which would be a MONUMENTAL achievement, that the only thing we can find is a single video on a Langley technology site?
 
... However, battery powered PHEV's and HEV's will be a significantly larger chunk of that, since they are cheaper and not subject to the range restrictions of pure BEV's.
We seem to agree on most things except this, mainly because you are not clearly stating what PHEVs &HEVs are cheaper than. I don't think they are cheaper than IC cars using imported, tropically grown, sugar cane alcohol OR natural gas fuel.

Also it is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that conversion of natural gas to a liquid IC fuel (benzine, etc.) if done on large scale is not so expensive that PHEV's and HEV's would be cheaper, even in a life-cycle cost analysis. (For decades the cost of a BTU in oil will rise much faster than for a BTU in NG or tropical alcohol, so Life-cycle cost will increasing favor the these IC fuels over both batteries and gasoline.) Also then the range of a "chemically liquefied NG" fuel car would be significantly less than a gasoline fueled car. (Manual for my first VW 1956 beetle recommended use of Benzine in it).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you said raw materials

Yes, it was a question about your initial statement.

I never claimed either of those things.

Then why did your comments contain the exact words I copied and pasted that said those things, in the form of claiming they were true? Is there some other meaning of "claim those things" I'm not aware of?



You're a liar, and not a very skillful or organised one.
 
Yes, it was a question about your initial statement.

No, I said materials, you said RAW materials and I immediately corrected you and said in SOME cases it was raw materials in other cases (like the PEM membrane) it was the cost of making the materials.



Then why did your comments contain the exact words I copied and pasted that said those things, in the form of claiming they were true? Is there some other meaning of "claim those things" I'm not aware of?

Because you have taken them out of context.

Either show the WHOLE post that supports either of those assertions or retract your false claim that I lied.

You're a liar, and not a very skillful or organised one.

Nope, so far the only lies posted have been from you.

For instance you just claimed that I said that the platinum couldn't be reclaimed from the plastic sheets. but I said no such thing:

MT said:
Isn't the rare metal content that makes up the majority of the cost easy and well worthwhile to recycle? To me it only seems a problem if you make so few it isn't worth having a recycling program. You pay for the manufacturing and the consumable (polymer based) part, and the metals get reused. ”

adoucette said:
Don't know, just know the up front cost is high, and much of that is for the PEM and that's not recyclable.

And I've always made a clear distinction between the expensive PEM membrane and the Platinum Catalyst because they aren't the same thing:

Pem.fuelcell2.gif


The Report also discusses the cost issue associated with the PEM membrane:

4.4.2.1. Membrane Material & Structure (Nafion® on ePTFE)

The PEM membrane is widely acknowledged as one of the more costly stack components and one needing to be reduced in cost to achieve a cost competitive fuel cell system.
Nafion®, a perfluorinated sulfonic acid (PFSA) from DuPont originally developed as chloro‐alkali membrane, is the main membrane chemistry used in PEM fuel cells. However, multiple other PFSA variants are in use, including membranes from Dow, Asahi, Gore, and GEFC. Multiple other membrane chemistries are under development39, including partially fluorinated (PVDF) and non‐fluorinated (BAM3G, S‐PPBP, MBS‐PBI, MBS‐PPTA, S‐PEK). Additionally, membranes may be homogenous, composites40, or placed on a substrate for mechanical reinforcement.

4.4.2.2. Membrane Material Cost
The membrane material system is quite simple and consists of only two elements: the Nafion® ionomer and the ePTFE substrate. Expanded PTFE is used extensively in the textile industry where the production quantities dwarf even the highest demands from the automotive sector. Conversations with apparel makers confirm that the price of ePTFE is unlikely to change appreciable between the low and high fuel cell system demands. Consequently, the cost of ePTFE is set at $5/m2 for all membrane production levels.
The cost of Nafion® ionomer greatly affects overall membrane cost

Note, no mention of Platinum in discussing the cost of the PEM membrane.

Then you claimed that I said: fuel cells are prohibitively expensive because they contain so much platinum

When I actually just used Platinum as one of several examples:

adoucette said:
The cost of the materials used in making fuel cells has always been the thing that has kept the cost high. In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

Big difference in that statement and your assertion.
 
Last edited:
We seem to agree on most things except this, mainly because you are not clearly stating what PHEVs &HEVs are cheaper than.

Cheaper than pure battery cars, but retaining most of the advantages.

I don't think they are cheaper than IC cars using imported, tropically grown, sugar cane alcohol OR natural gas fuel.

IC cars will always be cheaper to _buy._ At some point they may well be more expensive to operate though.

Also it is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that conversion of natural gas to a liquid IC fuel (benzine, etc.) if done on large scale is not so expensive that PHEV's and HEV's would be cheaper, even in a life-cycle cost analysis.

Perhaps - but natural gas is usable as-is without too much fuss. Most people have natural gas lines to their homes, for example, and compressors are available.
 
[more of the same]

Then you should have said that in the first place, instead of incrementally moving the goalposts for each new item of information and then dishonestly claiming you meant that all along.

You didn't. I know that, you know that, and anyone who is interested enough to check your first statements on the matter know that.
 
Cheaper than pure battery cars, but retaining most of the advantages.

More to the point, not suffering from the key disadvantage of the EV, that when the battery runs down there is now typically no place to recharge and if there is then recharging takes a while.

For a long time the EV will be not usable as a means of transportation between cities and I suspect that's a deal breaker for a lot of users.

I don't drive 250 miles that often, but I do it enough that I don't want to have to rent an IC car when I do, because when I drive that far, I'm usually gone for a few days, which over a 10 year life of a car would add about $10,000 to the cost.
 
Then you should have said that in the first place, instead of incrementally moving the goalposts for each new item of information and then dishonestly claiming you meant that all along.

You didn't. I know that, you know that, and anyone who is interested enough to check your first statements on the matter know that.

Too bad your reading comprehension sucks Michael.

I NEVER said raw materials, I said it was materials cost, you said RAW materials and I immediately corrected you and said in SOME cases it was raw materials in other cases (like the PEM membrane) it was the cost of making the materials.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2887322&postcount=2393

And I also pointed out the issue wasn't just the cost of the fuel cells (an issue you continue to ignore)

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2886904&postcount=2384

I linked to this from the DOE:

The costs have come down. The Department of Energy's research and development program has lead to reductions in costs of both hydrogen and fuel cell technology. We need to reduce costs but we're meeting our targets and we're moving in the right direction."

In fact, fuel cells are now available for specialty markets like emergency back-up power and material handling equipment. You may even see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or hydrogen fueling stations in your area as part of what's called technology demonstration efforts. But the move to using hydrogen as an energy carrier or fuel isn't going to happen overnight.

That explains the issue is MORE than just the cost of the fuel cells (as does the report I linked to)

Some vehicle electrical system components explicitly excluded from the analysis include:
 Main vehicle battery or ultra capacitor
 Electric traction motor (that drives the vehicle wheels)
 Traction inverter module (TIM) (for control of the traction motor)
 Vehicle frame, body, interior, or comfort related features (e.g., driver’s instruments, seats, and
windows)

Many of the components not included in this study are significant contributors to the total fuel cell vehicle cost
 
Last edited:
Too bad your reading comprehension sucks Michael.

I hardly think that's borne out by the facts.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that's just another intentional and premeditated lie in a desperate attempt to lend credence to the original off the cuff guess you presented as fact and now don't have the intellectual honesty to own up to.

SOME cases it was raw materials in other cases (like the PEM membrane) it was the cost of making the materials.

The cost of making the materials? That's the manufacturing costs. Any material you have to make is, by definition, manufactured. It's a combination of raw materials and manufacturing costs, as you will recall me mentioning. You understood that earlier, so I don't see what's changed.

Oh, yes I do, your claims.

Offering one of the many points on which you moved the goalposts as evidence that the goalposts had always been there doesn't help your credibility in my opinion.
 
The cost of making the materials? That's the manufacturing costs. Any material you have to make is, by definition, manufactured. It's a combination of raw materials and manufacturing costs, as you will recall me mentioning. You understood that earlier, so I don't see what's changed.

Oh, yes I do, your claims.

Offering one of the many points on which you moved the goalposts as evidence that the goalposts had always been there doesn't help your credibility in my opinion.

No Michael, right from the beginning of this discussion about the costs I made the distinction between Raw Materials like Platinum and Materials which are expensive to make like PEM.

So no moving of goal posts.

adoucette in 2390 said:
the fundamental issue is the cost of the actual materials,

MT said:
How much do the raw materials cost? (For the most expensive type you can think of if you like.)

adoucette in 2393 said:
The PEM membrane and the need for Platinum as a catalyst comes to mind.

The cost of the materials used in making fuel cells has always been the thing that has kept the cost high. In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

Was how this started,

But in your response notice what YOU dropped:

MT in 2395 said:
adoucette said:
The cost of the materials used in making fuel cells has always been the thing that has kept the cost high.

If you're sure of that, then you must know what the cost is. Please tell me.

When you quoted me you dropped the QUALIFICATON that you are now contesting: In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

In any case I responded to you with the exact same qualifications:

adoucette in 2397 said:
Well yeah, like I pointed out in the previous post, they use Platinum for a catalyst and it costs more than gold and they use a as polymer electrolyte membrane that is apparently very expensive to make. (note the costs have already come down from where they were, Astronomical to just Very high, but it's not due to volume issues, its still a materials problem)

Last November Toyota released the price of their Fuel Cell vehicle for 2015, and it's an SUV that will go for ~$138,000 in Europe.

And note I pointed out that the PEM MATERIAL was "very expensive to make", so right from the beginning I've always been talking about the cost of raw materials and the cost of manufactured materials that are very expensive to make.

If we just take the cost of raw materials then diamonds would be considered just as cheap as coal. But some materials are much more expensive to make.

And you did mention It's a combination of raw materials and manufacturing costs, as you will recall me mentioning.

Except you mentioned that in post 2406, well AFTER the previous exchange, so clearly I was not moving any goal posts when discussing things like the cost of the PEM.

Indeed in 2406 you posted:
A dept. of energy report a couple of years ago calculated (based on that fuel cell type, and including the raw materials costs) that a fuel cell to produce 100kW would cost about five 5,000 dollars based on a production run of half a million units. That is not an insurmountable obstacle for most car owners.

Leaving out the fact that the report notes that that is for an H2 system and that the report agreed with me: The PEM membrane is widely acknowledged as one of the more costly stack components and one needing to be reduced in cost to achieve a cost competitive fuel cell system. and though the report ASSUMES they can do so, as of yet that hasn't happened. And finally the report you quoted also states: Many of the components not included in this study are significant contributors to the total fuel cell vehicle cost, and I've always been discussing the FULL fuel cell vehicle cost, not just the cost of the actual fuel cell.

Indeed, as late as post 2411 you still didn't realize the report you quoted was about H2 Fuel cells and suggested that was my choice:
MT said:
You chose to only discuss hydrogen either because they are the most expensive fuel cells you could think of or some other reason you're not being so forthcoming about.

When in fact H2 fuel cells is what the DOE is working on and what that report you quoted was about.
 
Last edited:
image.jpg
$20,000 is less than the batteries of some electric cars!
Tata Technologies used set a price target of $20,000 and then used a multidimensional approach to develop the vehicle using the company's "intimate understanding" of frugal engineering principles. The end result was a small, urban oriented four-seat vehicle with a unique electric drive and operating software that weighs only 900 kilograms.

The eMo also has a steel frame capable of meeting existing crash standards. The eMO architecture emphasizes "right size" personal urban transportation by minimizing its exterior footprint and maximizing interior space, including seating for four adults.

The project eventually utilized the talents of more than 300 engineers Tata's Technologies four automotive engineering centers of excellence in Novi Pune, India; Detroit, Michigan; Coventry, in Britain and Stuttgart, Germany.

Tata is known for building low-cost vehicles, most notably the Nano, known as the "world's cheapest car" with a price tag of less than $2,000.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/ta...oit-auto-show-article-1.1005693#ixzz1jNTW2tWu Also mildly interesting is fact this link mis-spells Tata as Tato.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you miss this KEY point Billy?

Dubbed the “eMO”, the four-door electric hatchback was built not for retail release

Easy to put a price tag on something you don't plan on actually building or selling.
 
No, what the facts show.
You want to discuss things, then do so, that's interesting.
You want to post more personal BS, then do so, but it really is boring.
 
Back
Top