Batteries and propulsion

[@NotaRandomYTuser]

Congratulations Volvo. This is the way to go. As clearly stated in the video, the plug in hybrid range was a great way to give a taste of the future to your customers. Happy owner of a T8 twin engine, that gave me and my family a peek in the EV world. We can’t wait to see the full EV future… so promising.

[@VolvoCars]

Hello, we appreciate your support, and we are happy to hear that you are enjoying your Volvo!

[@abstractexchange5057]

@@VolvoCars HYDROGEN AS BATTERIES : HYDROGEN BATTERIES. Electric vehicles must switch to use hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. People often think about hydrogen as fuel, but many forget that hydrogen is not only a fuel, but also very good battery, too. 1/ The fundamental science dictates essential truth of all chemical batteries : if a chemical energy storing mechanism is charged as quickly as producing hydrogen, then this mechanism PRACTICALLY CANNOT HAVE BETTER ENERGY CONVERSION RATIO THAN ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS. Besides, it is possible to setup and adjust electrolysis reaction speed (for example slow down speed) to reach energy conversion ratio of electrolysis better than any chemical batteries. The best one of all possible chemical batteries in AEROBIC earth conditions is HYDROGEN BATTERY. All revolutions of chemical batteries, lithium batteries, LFP batteries, LTO batteries, graphene batteries .. are for reaching to the features of hydrogen batteries. 2/ New concept : hydrogen battery = (fuel cell + hydrogen storage object). The most simple hydrogen battery = 1 fuel cell + 1 compressed hydrogen balloon 300bar, can easily beat best lithium batteries by all features : more capacity, more power, less weight, forever lifespand, no degradation, charging in 5 minutes, same or better energy conversion ratio, but just noremarkable bigger volume sized than lithium batteries. 3/ So just equip electric vehicles with hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. And equip hydrogen filling stations with mobile electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+ bar on site from electrical outlets. Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations (hydrogen battery charging stations) can run electrolysers from electrical outlets to produce liquid hydrogen on site, to avoid suddenly leap change requirements for big number of already existing current liquid hydrogen cars in the markets. But liquid hydrogen has low energy conversion ratio. For now and near future, compressed hydrogen (produced on site) is more versatile for various applications. (Additionally envisagedly, owners of ANY SMALL COMPRESSED HYDROGEN MOBILITY VEHICLES/ROBOTS/DEVICES can buy small mobile household electrolysers to recharge hydrogen batteries at home at night/any times). 4/ Example and comparison : hydrogen cars vs battery cars, hydrogen batteries vs chemical batteries : The old approach sets high H2 cost because : they pay for making H2, then they pay much for converting H2 to liquid H2, then they pay much for transporting liquid H2 by trucks (complex safety trucks, and very small weight of liquid H2 on every trucks), then thay pay for keeping cryogen conditions to store liquid H2. But in new approach of ‘electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : you use electricity from electrical outlets at electrolysing hydrogen filling stations to run electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+bar on site. So you pay only for electricity and water ofcourse. No other fees. No complex cryogen equipments. Compare : hydrogen batteries vs lithium batteries in the approach of “electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : 4.1/ Grid transmission loss : hydrogen battery charging and lithium battery charging onsite cause same grid transmission losses. Conclusion : Equal. 4.2/ Energy conversion ratio in charging : (electric energy -> chemical energy) Electrolysers in quick mode (very high electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio about 70%. Lithium batteries quick charging has energy conversion ratio about 60-70%. Electrolysers in slow mode (small electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio 90%. Lithium batteries slow charging has energy conversion ratio 90%. Conclusion : electrolysers win, because of the ability of flexible modes of scheduling and functioning to reach higher energy conversion ratio. 4.3/ Energy conversion ratio in performance : (chemical energy -> electric energy) Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 75+% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 70-% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 85+% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 95-% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Conclusion : Equal. 4.4/ Energy loss in energy packing compressing process : Hydrogen battery using compressed H2 300bar cause about 3-5% energy loss for compression. But hydrogen battery weight is very small. Lithium battery loses 0 energy in compression. But lithium battery weight IS INHERENTLY HIGH. That means you always need to transport noneccessary lithium battery heavy weights on your vehicles every seconds. -> The higher power category, the higher loss with lithium batteries. The longer range, the higher loss with lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win with big advantages 4.5/ Lifespan : Hydrogen batteries have practically forever life span. Lithium batteries have lifespan about 3 years. Some good ones have 5 years. Other modern modified lithium batteries have more lifespan but smaller capacities. But all of them degrade every year. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.6/ Influence of environment temperature : Hydrogen batteries never fear environment temperatures. Lithium batteries fear environment temperature. Even in some seasons you can not or your ineffectively use lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.7/ Charging time : Hydrogen batteries : load compressed Hydrogen 300+bar or exchange compressed hydrogen canisters 300 bar in 3-5 minutes. But you must waste minimal 30 minutes for nofull charging lithium batteries, and often you must waste some money for paying some unnecessary things in fool waiting times too. -> waste time + waste money. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.8/ Synchronyze with grid supplying schedules : Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can easily pick up flexible schedules to run electrolysers in tandem with grid supplying schedules. So Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can pick up right hours of day for incentives electrical tarif. Nets of electrolysing hydrogen filling stations ideally use intermitten clean energy/renewable energy. But electric charging stations can not pick up times. High power electric charging stations terribly conflict with intermitten shedules of clean energy/renewable energy. The more higher power electric charging station in quick charging mode, the more terribly it conflicts with intermitten energy supply schedules of clean energy/renewable energy. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. FINAL NATURE TRUTH VERDICT : HYDROGEN CARS WIN MANYFOLD AGAINST BATTERY CARS. Just need to make right approach, and right choice

[@thewrightstuff8956]

They definitely made the right move by working towards a fully electric lineup, but I think they are underestimating the timeframe that they have to get it done. I hope that they are able to bring their timeline forward by a couple years, otherwise, they might be taken down by other competitors.

[@abstractexchange5057]

HYDROGEN AS BATTERIES : HYDROGEN BATTERIES. Electric vehicles must switch to use hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. People often think about hydrogen as fuel, but many forget that hydrogen is not only a fuel, but also very good battery, too. 1/ The fundamental science dictates essential truth of all chemical batteries : if a chemical energy storing mechanism is charged as quickly as producing hydrogen, then this mechanism PRACTICALLY CANNOT HAVE BETTER ENERGY CONVERSION RATIO THAN ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS. Besides, it is possible to setup and adjust electrolysis reaction speed (for example slow down speed) to reach energy conversion ratio of electrolysis better than any chemical batteries. The best one of all possible chemical batteries in AEROBIC earth conditions is HYDROGEN BATTERY. All revolutions of chemical batteries, lithium batteries, LFP batteries, LTO batteries, graphene batteries .. are for reaching to the features of hydrogen batteries. 2/ New concept : hydrogen battery = (fuel cell + hydrogen storage object). The most simple hydrogen battery = 1 fuel cell + 1 compressed hydrogen balloon 300bar, can easily beat best lithium batteries by all features : more capacity, more power, less weight, forever lifespand, no degradation, charging in 5 minutes, same or better energy conversion ratio, but just noremarkable bigger volume sized than lithium batteries. 3/ So just equip electric vehicles with hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. And equip hydrogen filling stations with mobile electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+ bar on site from electrical outlets. Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations (hydrogen battery charging stations) can run electrolysers from electrical outlets to produce liquid hydrogen on site, to avoid suddenly leap change requirements for big number of already existing current liquid hydrogen cars in the markets. But liquid hydrogen has low energy conversion ratio. For now and near future, compressed hydrogen (produced on site) is more versatile for various applications. (Additionally envisagedly, owners of ANY SMALL COMPRESSED HYDROGEN MOBILITY VEHICLES/ROBOTS/DEVICES can buy small mobile household electrolysers to recharge hydrogen batteries at home at night/any times). 4/ Example and comparison : hydrogen cars vs battery cars, hydrogen batteries vs chemical batteries : The old approach sets high H2 cost because : they pay for making H2, then they pay much for converting H2 to liquid H2, then they pay much for transporting liquid H2 by trucks (complex safety trucks, and very small weight of liquid H2 on every trucks), then thay pay for keeping cryogen conditions to store liquid H2. But in new approach of ‘electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : you use electricity from electrical outlets at electrolysing hydrogen filling stations to run electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+bar on site. So you pay only for electricity and water ofcourse. No other fees. No complex cryogen equipments. Compare : hydrogen batteries vs lithium batteries in the approach of “electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : 4.1/ Grid transmission loss : hydrogen battery charging and lithium battery charging onsite cause same grid transmission losses. Conclusion : Equal. 4.2/ Energy conversion ratio in charging : (electric energy -> chemical energy) Electrolysers in quick mode (very high electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio about 70%. Lithium batteries quick charging has energy conversion ratio about 60-70%. Electrolysers in slow mode (small electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio 90%. Lithium batteries slow charging has energy conversion ratio 90%. Conclusion : electrolysers win, because of the ability of flexible modes of scheduling and functioning to reach higher energy conversion ratio. 4.3/ Energy conversion ratio in performance : (chemical energy -> electric energy) Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 75+% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 70-% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 85+% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 95-% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Conclusion : Equal. 4.4/ Energy loss in energy packing compressing process : Hydrogen battery using compressed H2 300bar cause about 3-5% energy loss for compression. But hydrogen battery weight is very small. Lithium battery loses 0 energy in compression. But lithium battery weight IS INHERENTLY HIGH. That means you always need to transport noneccessary lithium battery heavy weights on your vehicles every seconds. -> The higher power category, the higher loss with lithium batteries. The longer range, the higher loss with lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win with big advantages 4.5/ Lifespan : Hydrogen batteries have practically forever life span. Lithium batteries have lifespan about 3 years. Some good ones have 5 years. Other modern modified lithium batteries have more lifespan but smaller capacities. But all of them degrade every year. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.6/ Influence of environment temperature : Hydrogen batteries never fear environment temperatures. Lithium batteries fear environment temperature. Even in some seasons you can not or your ineffectively use lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.7/ Charging time : Hydrogen batteries : load compressed Hydrogen 300+bar or exchange compressed hydrogen canisters 300 bar in 3-5 minutes. But you must waste minimal 30 minutes for nofull charging lithium batteries, and often you must waste some money for paying some unnecessary things in fool waiting times too. -> waste time + waste money. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.8/ Synchronyze with grid supplying schedules : Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can easily pick up flexible schedules to run electrolysers in tandem with grid supplying schedules. So Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can pick up right hours of day for incentives electrical tarif. Nets of electrolysing hydrogen filling stations ideally use intermitten clean energy/renewable energy. But electric charging stations can not pick up times. High power electric charging stations terribly conflict with intermitten shedules of clean energy/renewable energy. The more higher power electric charging station in quick charging mode, the more terribly it conflicts with intermitten energy supply schedules of clean energy/renewable energy. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. FINAL NATURE TRUTH VERDICT : HYDROGEN CARS WIN MANYFOLD AGAINST BATTERY CARS. Just need to make right approach, and right choice

[@Jaxsonm765]

Congratulations Volvo. Love.. Volvo For Life. Hello from Malaysia.

[@pabloleganttineoantelo2916]

*Technologies Integrated.* *Succes Desing & Performance Approach.* *Saludos.*

[@pabloleganttineoantelo2916]

*Exquisite Model Develop.*

[@팬텀-t5d]

For driverless cars, security is important. It seems difficult... This is impossible even with a computer. It seems impossible for a driverless car. However, the place where complete security comes from will be the best car brand in 2050.

[@noppholb.3337]

Need 2 wheel drive mode to increase range

[@llortllort1]

I really hope that Volvo can achieve a margin on the BEV cars eventually. I don't want my favourite car brand of all times to die due to the costs of transition. I've owned a PV and Amazon from the 1960s and two 740 from the 1980s and loved them!

[@abstractexchange5057]

HYDROGEN AS BATTERIES : HYDROGEN BATTERIES. Electric vehicles must switch to use hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. People often think about hydrogen as fuel, but many forget that hydrogen is not only a fuel, but also very good battery, too. 1/ The fundamental science dictates essential truth of all chemical batteries : if a chemical energy storing mechanism is charged as quickly as producing hydrogen, then this mechanism PRACTICALLY CANNOT HAVE BETTER ENERGY CONVERSION RATIO THAN ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS. Besides, it is possible to setup and adjust electrolysis reaction speed (for example slow down speed) to reach energy conversion ratio of electrolysis better than any chemical batteries. The best one of all possible chemical batteries in AEROBIC earth conditions is HYDROGEN BATTERY. All revolutions of chemical batteries, lithium batteries, LFP batteries, LTO batteries, graphene batteries .. are for reaching to the features of hydrogen batteries. 2/ New concept : hydrogen battery = (fuel cell + hydrogen storage object). The most simple hydrogen battery = 1 fuel cell + 1 compressed hydrogen balloon 300bar, can easily beat best lithium batteries by all features : more capacity, more power, less weight, forever lifespand, no degradation, charging in 5 minutes, same or better energy conversion ratio, but just noremarkable bigger volume sized than lithium batteries. 3/ So just equip electric vehicles with hydrogen batteries instead of chemical batteries. And equip hydrogen filling stations with mobile electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+ bar on site from electrical outlets. Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations (hydrogen battery charging stations) can run electrolysers from electrical outlets to produce liquid hydrogen on site, to avoid suddenly leap change requirements for big number of already existing current liquid hydrogen cars in the markets. But liquid hydrogen has low energy conversion ratio. For now and near future, compressed hydrogen (produced on site) is more versatile for various applications. (Additionally envisagedly, owners of ANY SMALL COMPRESSED HYDROGEN MOBILITY VEHICLES/ROBOTS/DEVICES can buy small mobile household electrolysers to recharge hydrogen batteries at home at night/any times). 4/ Example and comparison : hydrogen cars vs battery cars, hydrogen batteries vs chemical batteries : The old approach sets high H2 cost because : they pay for making H2, then they pay much for converting H2 to liquid H2, then they pay much for transporting liquid H2 by trucks (complex safety trucks, and very small weight of liquid H2 on every trucks), then thay pay for keeping cryogen conditions to store liquid H2. But in new approach of ‘electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : you use electricity from electrical outlets at electrolysing hydrogen filling stations to run electrolysers to produce compressed hydrogen 300+bar on site. So you pay only for electricity and water ofcourse. No other fees. No complex cryogen equipments. Compare : hydrogen batteries vs lithium batteries in the approach of “electrolysing hydrogen filling station” : 4.1/ Grid transmission loss : hydrogen battery charging and lithium battery charging onsite cause same grid transmission losses. Conclusion : Equal. 4.2/ Energy conversion ratio in charging : (electric energy -> chemical energy) Electrolysers in quick mode (very high electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio about 70%. Lithium batteries quick charging has energy conversion ratio about 60-70%. Electrolysers in slow mode (small electrolysis reaction speed) have energy conversion ratio 90%. Lithium batteries slow charging has energy conversion ratio 90%. Conclusion : electrolysers win, because of the ability of flexible modes of scheduling and functioning to reach higher energy conversion ratio. 4.3/ Energy conversion ratio in performance : (chemical energy -> electric energy) Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 75+% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 70-% in mode of intensive power performance (when require delivering much walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Fuel cell has energy conversion ratio about 85+% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Lithium batteries have energy conversion ratio about 95-% in mode of nointensive power performance (when require delivering less walt/seconds), energy loss in form of heat. Conclusion : Equal. 4.4/ Energy loss in energy packing compressing process : Hydrogen battery using compressed H2 300bar cause about 3-5% energy loss for compression. But hydrogen battery weight is very small. Lithium battery loses 0 energy in compression. But lithium battery weight IS INHERENTLY HIGH. That means you always need to transport noneccessary lithium battery heavy weights on your vehicles every seconds. -> The higher power category, the higher loss with lithium batteries. The longer range, the higher loss with lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win with big advantages 4.5/ Lifespan : Hydrogen batteries have practically forever life span. Lithium batteries have lifespan about 3 years. Some good ones have 5 years. Other modern modified lithium batteries have more lifespan but smaller capacities. But all of them degrade every year. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.6/ Influence of environment temperature : Hydrogen batteries never fear environment temperatures. Lithium batteries fear environment temperature. Even in some seasons you can not or your ineffectively use lithium batteries. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.7/ Charging time : Hydrogen batteries : load compressed Hydrogen 300+bar or exchange compressed hydrogen canisters 300 bar in 3-5 minutes. But you must waste minimal 30 minutes for nofull charging lithium batteries, and often you must waste some money for paying some unnecessary things in fool waiting times too. -> waste time + waste money. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. 4.8/ Synchronyze with grid supplying schedules : Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can easily pick up flexible schedules to run electrolysers in tandem with grid supplying schedules. So Electrolysing hydrogen filling stations can pick up right hours of day for incentives electrical tarif. Nets of electrolysing hydrogen filling stations ideally use intermitten clean energy/renewable energy. But electric charging stations can not pick up times. High power electric charging stations terribly conflict with intermitten shedules of clean energy/renewable energy. The more higher power electric charging station in quick charging mode, the more terribly it conflicts with intermitten energy supply schedules of clean energy/renewable energy. Conclusion : hydrogen batteries win. FINAL NATURE TRUTH VERDICT : HYDROGEN CARS WIN MANYFOLD AGAINST BATTERY CARS. Just need to make right approach, and right choice

[@팬텀-t5d]

To be honest, wouldn't it be better for energy companies to directly produce eco-friendly gasoline rather than electric vehicles? I think you can make it. Even if the charging time of an electric vehicle is reduced, it is likely to break down, the electricity may be cut off, and even if a driverless car is made, the computer is not secure, but it is a car security problem..

[@1NG_]

1000km range! I like it and Volvo all electric vehicle will be one to go for

[@RadoslavFicko]

The more cells in the battery and the larger they are, the greater the electrical capacity of the battery, expressed in ampere hours (Ah). Using voltage (V) and ampere hours (Ah), we get a battery whose energy is E=V.Ah. If we assume that the chemical reactions (energy released) take place at the surface, we get the total energy of the battery by summing over all infinitely thin cells dx, where the thinner the cell, the greater the energy density (E/(L-x))dx=dE

[@vl8443]

What are you going to do with used batteries? That's is the most embarrassing question whether the "how far I can go on one charge?".

[@VolvoCars]

We are developing a three step strategy for handling electric vehicle batteries after their original use that involves reuse, utilisation in energy storage application and eventually recycling. The purpose of the strategy is to maximise battery utilisation, minimise environmental impact by enabling circular material flow, and decrease cost.

[@jackyong815]

Super proud to tell everybody Volvo is now owned by Geely of China #MadeInChina2025 #BeltAndRoad 🇨🇳

[@MatrixJockey]

😆

[@friis908]

Jack the troll is ALSO in this threade

[@thosoz3431]

2030 ? They are doomed.

[@cristobalv]

why?

[@thosoz3431]

@@cristobalv VW admitted they are 5 years behind Tesla. Tesla won't stop advancing and wait for the others to catch up. If Volvo build's even a good EV it's will probably be at a loss and the bulk of it's customers won't want ICE again. If it doesn't built a good EV it's doomed. Volvo has no charging station s. Volvo has no background in software . I'm not sure but I think Volvo has nothing so far except nice videos.

[@cristobalv]

​@@thosoz3431 Unless you are in the Volvo Board No one really knows what will happen in the future, at least they are moving in the right direction. Time will tell. The rest it is just speculations, it's Fun, but just speculations.

[@thosoz3431]

@@cristobalv And speculation is important. Shares are bought or sold because of what might happen. Lot's of glitzy videos are just a distraction, they have a purpose, they are designed to stop you seeing what's not happening. Volvo's claim to fame used to be ' the safest car in the world'. They haven't even got that anymore. Stop telling me how good you are Volvo. Show me a your battery factory and your cars on the road.

[@vandita3695]

They said that all their vehicles will be electric will be electric by the end of this decade, which means that they will stop producing ice cars by 2030, they will launch electric cars before 2030. Talking about charging stations, their cars will be using the same chargers that all other electric cars except Tesla is using. They have already worked with google for software. And Volvo also has a chinese company backing it so it means they have a lot of resources

[@leon__feinstein]

I hope you guys realize your mistake. PLEASE KEEP MAKING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES.

[@xavierdarche4822]

It would be a mistake to still invest in ICE’s. The EU (most important for Volvo) will ban the ICE from about 2035. Countries like Canada, India and Japan will follow at the same timeframe. China also has strict rules planned for ICE’s and might move to full electric. Even in the US there might be a ban (California already has that plan). So, who might then still be buying ICE cars? Africa, Australia, South America and a few US states. That would be too expensive. Spending billions of development costs for not even a tenth of today’s sales volume. Many people might feel it is a mistake, but from a business perspective keeping ICE’s would be the mistake.

[@leon__feinstein]

@@xavierdarche4822 your funny. The EU are America’s puppets. Once Biden gets out of office, and the correct people go in. Then all is well for I.C.E cars. And California’s governor just got a recall. So yeah…

[@leon__feinstein]

@@xavierdarche4822 also, you cannot predict the future

[@xavierdarche4822]

@@leon__feinstein If you think that all these individual EU countries will get back on their legislation of banning ICE’s by 2035 just because the US will say so, then you’re a fool. By the time Biden might be out of office and even if then a republican takes the White House and when he/she then gets to a point where European countries are pressured to lift the ban. At that time most manufacturers have already stopped development of all ICE’s. It would be so expansive to start ICE development back up, that, combined with uncertainty over possible future bans, no company in their right mind would go back to ICE’s. At best they might reintroduced plug-in hybrids with old engines. The only companies that will still be developing and producing ICE’s are the companies that either make massive margins on their products (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls-Royce, etc.) because they can afford it, or those that focus heavily on the US market (Chrysler, Chevrolet, etc.).

[@JohnSmith-pn2vl]

the ice age is long over brother, get on with it.