Don't know how seriously to take this; not much detail on volume or mass.http://www.gizmag.com/mecc-bio-methanol-fuel-cell-range-extender/23462/p...
Certainly the Danish implementation is ugly and small, but that's only to be expected, I guess.
The catch with these fancy invention in SMALL cars is, the small car.
For comparison lets look at the 40kw Model S. Just throwing out some easy numbers we'll say the 40kw battery drives the vehicle at our preferred speeds for 2 hours. That's using 20kWh. If the fuel cell replaces enough energy just to double the range that would be an extra 20kWh or 8 fuel cells and a large enough tank to run them for 2 hours. It seems to me that the 85kw battery Tesla offers is smaller and more efficient than this idea.
Nothing I have stated is based an many facts of any sort. Just my take on what little info they provided in the article. By the time this prototype is released Tesla will have even better tech of their own. I don't see it catching up.
Being part of the effort i would say you should take it serius, i completely agree that the article offers few details - if you would like further information let me know.
I have always thought ugly was an ugly word. When it comes to design i guess it is a matter of opinion and personal taste. When it comes to derogatory statements on Denmark and your expectations on what comes out of Denmark (small/ugly red.) i simply do not know where to start in the snappy comebacks so i will let it rest...
I agree with you that small cars are just that, small - the main point of the concept is energy effeciency - and saving energy is the best way of being effecient.
The Range extender is based on the Average power consumption of any give application - being urban, sub urban or professional usage. This enables a reduced battry pack (and weight) as the battery pack is only used as a buffer.
The fuel - in this case Methnaol, has a very high energy desinty and with a conversion effeciency of 45% electrical and 80% total (heat or cooling) you can essentially carry the fuel you need for any duration of operation. If you need the vehicel for very intence or extended operation the refueling of methanol is just like gasoline - fast, cheap and convenient.
You should note that as a seriel range extender there are varius ways of configuring the hybrid setup.
It is obvius that the concept is new and in no way compares to the BEV effort but when you take the time to look over the concept it has a potential worth exploring further. I am a huge fan of tesla and BEV in general, but i also see some difficulties and do not belive this to be the silver bullit - hence the development in question.
I would be happy to elaborate further if you have some questions.
Your thinking seems about as careless and error-ridden as your spelling. A common problem.
@Jensen, if you are serious about this, don't go for "small car" route, think big. In small cars batteries win hands down the competition with fuel cells (power, simplicity, size of the system, the convenience of never needing to go to gas station etc.) but in large cars "refueling" and cost of the needed batteries becomes an issue and you just don't need multi-megawatt of power to move even huge trucks.
Put that system in long-haul truck if you want to get real attention to "powers that be". A 18-wheeler with four motors (each driving wheel having their own), the huge torque that electric motors offer combined with highly efficient not too expensive fuel cell "range extender" would make a very good testcase.
A big 18-wheeler uses more than five times the energy a passenger car uses (especially if terrain is hilly), so getting even small range of 300 miles (small for something like 18-wheeler) would require 425kWh battery. Charging that in any reasonable time would be pretty damn close to impossibility, and cost of the battery alone would be very high. A required fuel cell OTOH would not need to be that big, and high energy density of methanol would make perfect fuel for those.
Brian H, you may be aware of this, but let me point this out just in case: You come across ridiculously arrogant. Absolutely inadequate for a conversation where you don't know nor see you conversation partner, IMO.
You should really cut on these kinds of comments, or at least make them in the addressees native language (w/ correct spelling and grammar, of course). As a native speaker, correcting non-native speakers' spellings and then drawing an analogy about their personality is just too cheap and makes you look like an idiot yourself.
Jensen is relying on layman's ignorance of numerous issues, not least of which is the problems with alcohol fuel (low density, very high volatility, toxicity, etc.) Methanol is not a benign substance to deal with.
As for "non-native speakers", if I were writing on a foreign language blog (in, say, German), I would be especially careful with spelling, and double-check the grammar, rather than making the readers try to guess what I intended. Making varying and un-phonetic guesses at words throughout the text is, IMO, arrogant carelessness.
How it "comes across" to you is the least of my concerns.
Brian H, how do you "double-check the grammar"? Seriously, how?
These are not blog entires, they are comments in a forum. Errors are inevitable and understandable and for non-native speakers errors in language should not count anything at all. I agree with V.B, and I think 99% of the people share this feeling. Probably 100% from those that are not native English speakers.
If writing in another language, and I want to be understood, I don't just guess.