By 2017, Mercedes-Benz will begin offering its GLC F-Cell– the world’s first-ever plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle. For the GLC F Cell, Mercedes-Benz dealt with Daimler to devise a brand new fuel cell system that is approximately 30 percent more compact than previously, which implies that all of it can be placed in the engine bay for the first time. The Mercedes-Benz electric automobile platform, or “multi-model automobile architecture” is similar in numerous ways to the Tesla Motors layout. The battery pack is flat on the bottom flooring pan, and the electrical motors are at the front and back of the vehicle. The vehicle has two carbon fiber tanks, which are built into the vehicle’s flooring and use up to four kilograms (8.8 pounds) of liquid hydrogen saved a pressure of 700 bar. One tank is mounted down the F-Cell’s centerline, while the other is installed at the rear the vehicle. According to Mercedes-Benz, the hydrogen fuel tank can be filled up in about three minutes. Specs-wise, the Mercedes GLC F-Cell will have a combined range of about 500 kilometers (310 miles), consisting of an all-electric variety of about 30 miles. The automaker managed to diminish the size of its fuel-cell stack by about 30 percent so that fits within “standard engine compartments.” The stack itself utilizes 90 percent less platinum than standard stacks. The vehicle will also mark another world first: the use of a 9 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that can be charged from the grid, further enhancing the car’s eco-credentials. Like existing fuel cell designs from Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota, it will likely be available in minimal amounts, and only in areas where there are enough hydrogen fueling stations. Mercedes hasn’t confirmed strategies to offer the F-Cell in the United States Mercedes-Benz will likely reveal more details on the GLC F-Cell at the 2016 Paris Motor Program this September. Interested in utilizing composites in the automotive industry? Learn more about certifications in the following areas: ACMA’s Co.
< a href=https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/2016/06/mercedes-benz-develops-first-plug-hybrid-fuel-cell-car/&ct=ga&cd=CAIyHDBlYzBhZWNmNjY1NDE0NmI6Y29tOmVuOlVTOlI&usg=AFQjCNFWYKi7KmoE1HhGXcNuHGOTArS0kw target="_ blank
United States Fuel Need Is Likely to Slide This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for circulation to your colleagues, customers or consumers check out http://www.djreprints.com. Electric vehicles are poised to lower U.S. fuel demand by 5% over the next 20 years– and could suffice by as much as 20%– according to a brand-new report being released Monday by energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The United States, which currently uses more than nine million barrels of gasoline a day, could see that demand stop by as much as 2 million barrels a day if electric vehicles get more than 35% market share by 2035, according to the report. That aggressive case assumes Tesla Motors Inc. TSLA 3.17 % and other automobile makers begin to deliver lower-cost electric vehicles that can travel longer distances in relatively brief order, said the report’s author, Prajit Ghosh. A most likely circumstance is a 5% drop in U.S. gasoline demand as electrical automobiles develop to more than 10% of the United States vehicle fleet by 2035, he stated. Even the low end of the projection by Wood Mackenzie, which provides thorough analysis for a vast array of customers including big oil business, energies and banks, is a more bullish outlook for electric-car adoption than lots of oil-and-gas companies have actually espoused. Spencer Dale, the chief economic expert of energy company BP 2.98 % PLC, stated recently in Houston that while he expects electric automobiles to start getting traction, the internal-combustion engine still has substantial advantages over electric alternatives and widespread adoption won’t take place in the next 20 years. “It will still spend some time,” Mr. Dale said. “Electric cars will occur. It is a sort of when, not if, story.” The electrification of the vehicle has actually developed more slowly than some anticipated, in part thanks to low fuel costs and restricted battery life that indicated drivers needed to charge every 100 miles. However more capable vehicles are concerning market as tightening up air-pollution policies in places such as Europe and China force auto makers to craft much better electrical vehicles. The U.S. market today stays tiny, with pure electric cars totaling up to less than 1% of total sales up until now in 2012. However Tesla’s decision to build vehicles with sizable batteries that can run for more than 200 miles before charging has actually led a variety of rivals to double down on their own electric-car designs. Nissan Motor Co. NSANY 3.18 %, Hyundai Motor Co. HYMLY 0.00 % and Volkswagen AG VLKAY 3.79 % are dealing with their own long-range electric vehicles. Ford Motor Co. F 1.96 % has said it would invest $4.5 billion over the next four years to establish 12 new electrical vehicles and hybrids, and Volvo has set a goal of producing one million electrical automobiles by 2025. Tesla’s Design 3, which is set up to begin rolling out to consumers in 2017 at a cost point of approximately $35,000, has the prospective to push electric cars into the mainstream in the next years and cause a significant damage in U.S. fuel demand after 2025, Mr. Ghosh stated. “The Model 3 is planting a flag,” he stated. “With time, it has the potential to be a disruptive force in the market.” A couple of brand-new electric vehicles are expected making their launchings soon with lower price, Wood Mackenzie said. The Chevrolet Bolt– which will cost $30,000 after tax credits– hits the marketplace later on this year. If electric automobiles get a grip in the U.S., the impact will not be all bad for fossil-fuel companies, the report concluded. While petroleum demand would fall, natural-gas need would likely increase, since utilities would have to generate more electrical power and more of it would progressively originate from natural-gas-burning power plants as well as renewable-energy sources, the report stated. Batteries are not the answer fuel cells are which require nonrenewable fuel sources. Need for petroleum will not be dented as petroleum is a rich source of hydrogen. Yes, it’s dependable. No countless parts for a combustion engine or transmission. No oil modifications, no $700 modifications at 35k. A lot of EV will fail when they are made for a poet, surviving on Walden pond, i.e. austere and cumbersome … Absent resolution of the specific energy/power density issue, the variety problem, yolectric’s have no future. Plugin Hybrids, turbodiesel especially (eventually with Stirling Engine heat healing) are a different story. Up until now Tesla’s simply a Ponzi plan for investors. Musk’s an undoubtedly skilled engineer and bidnessman who’s never satisfied a dollar in taxpayer slushfunding he didn’t like. @Andrew Eppink You make your belief really clear. Fortunately, its just that, a sentiment. All EV is just around the corner. Most likely it will take place sooner than the forecasts in this post. You see, we all have our sentiments/opinions. Based on fact, Hal. You see sufficient onboard electric energy density now? I do not. Tough nut to crack. Undoubtedly it’s tough adequate gridscale, the only adequate solution pumped storage up until now (tho railcars might help – http://www.aresnorthamerica.com). Are Snort seems to have the best concept. seems like we are again losing out on the more logical (to me) modification, which is to include the electric engine w/gas– yes hybrids! What is throughout the board there were 25-40% hybrids by 2035? Think about the gas intake decrease as well as develop systems that self charge while driving to even more decrease the total need on the grid … I ‘d like my Hemi to have an extra engine that could boost the mpg in my RAM 1500! Fascinating the canard that electrical cars are! Fools: energy stored in the vehicle originates from the electrical grid, which mainly comes from non-renewable hydrocarbons through gas, oil and coal. No kind of energy transfer is 100% effective – hydrocarbons transformed into electrical power transformed over power lines to the charging station and then put in the automobile – there are energy looses the whole time the method. GAS demand might REDUCE, but energy usage will not! Now, if we begin talking electrical energy from nuclear then as a society we may be on to something. Some day in the not to far-off future burning hydrocarbons will indeed be looked at as folly – so many products and nearly everything we touch is made partially from some hydrocarbon – there are way more crucial uses of fossil ‘fuels’ than burning. Complete disclosure: I remain in the energy company. @Barry Rava I agree with the majority of what you say except that electric cars are absurd. As compared to the 25-30% efficiency (or looked at another way 70-75% waste) of energy in a carbon based engine, any ineffectiveness in the electrical car pale by contrast. And if a home, like mine, is sourced on 100% wind or nuclear, then my automobile regardless of efficiency, is essentially carbon totally free while being used. That there is carbon in the tires, seals, which carbon was used in it’s manufacture is irrelevant – all vehicles are that way. What I would be thinking about in the energy company is ways to transform all that wind power to some sort of dense storage. One idea may be that every house have an 80 kWh storage module (flywheel, big battery variety) and thus have the ability to charge when the wind is blowing, or water is discussing the dam, or whatever, and therefore get rid of the peak of day requirements. That would produce a huge change in the energy business. Don’t believe it for a second. As quickly as the subsidies for these things vanish, so will these worthless toys. The post cannot point out other energy efficient innovations being R&D ‘d and brought to market. One is www.sonexresearch.com. The sonex engine can make the internal combustion engine a minimum of 20% more fuel efficient while lowering toxic emissions. Another technology is www.soonysystems.com. The soony engine, which is an improved variation of a sterling engine, can become a part of most houses lowering energy intake by near to 20%. It takes twenty years to bring a nuclear plant on line. Oil and gas won’t be this inexpensive that long. Conservationists need to prefer new nuclear power plants (in addition to the wind and solar plants they already like) now. When electric vehicle usage reaches the level asserted in the short article, who will be left to pay the subsidy which is the only thing that makes them financially possible. @HENRY VREELAND – Federal EV Tax Credit phases out for a particular maker after they have actually provided 200k automobiles in the United States. Excepct to see the Federal EV subsidy expire in the next 24-months for Tesla, Nissan and GM. Considering that the Federal EV Tax Credit is a non refundable credit an individual would need to have at least $7500 in Federal earnings tax liability to obtain the full advantage of the tax credit. That suggests all it can do is lower an individual Federal Income Tax liability, a tax payer could not get more back than exactly what they owe in tax liability. @Greg Brance @HENRY VREELAND As competitors increases, the prices will boil down. The tax credit will go away. The credit is simply a carrot on a stay with assist the EV advancement. That seems sensible … one reason that I don’t see oil going up long term unless there’s significant production cuts. I’ve been an SUV driver since 1999, however my next vehicle will be a hybrid. the requirement for lots of freight area has diminished as the kids grew older. Yes, I think that gas intake “could” drop 5% in the next Twenty Years through using battery cars. And gas availability may rise as well. In the ultra-short run, offered the British MP disaster, the stay sentiment got more powerful which indicates the pound versus the dollar is more powerful which in turn might indicate demand for the oil would be more powerful as the usd priced oil would be less expensive. In short, US shale oil and gas business deserve the bet. In the short run, Chinese authority has actually abandoned some of its reform efforts for economic growth, the slowing down of Chinese economy would not be as significant as the marketplace has perceived, the demand for energy grows like the rest of Asia if not more. In other words, India, China, Indonesia and others have growing need for energy while there hasn’t been enough investment because oil cost collapsed, which might lead to increase in oil rate in the brief run. In the long run, there would be more effective use of energy, high percentages of energy supplied by nuclear power, solar power, wind power … Prior to then, a financier would have collected enough dividends from an energy MLP No place in this article does it discuss that nuclear and – yes – coal will be needed to satisfy the energy need of charging up all those electric cars. No doubt technogy will create performances in everything however in 20 years almost anything could occur. Seems like forecasting the sun will show up in the east in Twenty Years.
See all stories on this subject