What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
126 Comments
- mnemy, on 11/05/2009, -1/+26Investing in only one technology like you suggest is exactly how we got so reliant on gasoline. You have to approach a problem in several ways to come up with the best solution.
- rizzo2008, on 11/05/2009, -3/+16You realize fuel cell vehicles are electric? Its just that a fuel cell produces electricity with a continuous flow of reactants (hydrogen and air (oxygen)) instead of oxidation-reduction reaction in a battery. I still think its more promising than battery tech in the short to medium term since batteries lose charge over time and wear out while fuel cells produce the same amount of electric current regardless of fuel level much like a gasoline or diesel engine (unlike batteries where current output and subsequently power will drop in many cases as the battery gets closer to depletion although this may not be as relevant for more modern batteries).
- GrammerPants, on 11/05/2009, -2/+12We will just end up with more oil. Your solution is fail.
- jarjarbinx, on 11/05/2009, -0/+9because the energy density of hydrogen is so much lower than gasoline. The reason fuel cell is used for hydrogen is the higher efficiency compared to a combustion engine, efficiency required to compensate for the lower energy density.
- rizzo2008, on 11/05/2009, -0/+9"hydrogen's biggest problem, according to Richter, is platinum, the catalyst material in today's fuel cells. "It isn't just the fact that it's expensive, it's that it's not there"
You can make fuel cells without platinum anymore
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16275-platin ... - zzzBrett, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7This is an article written by a journalist with a degree in rhetoric -- yes, the art of persuasion by language. The entire content of the article is based on ONE person's research on the topic. I'm not saying that a hydrogen economy is the right direction, or even is viable, i'm saying this article doesn't represent both sides of the story.
- JDiZZle300Z, on 11/05/2009, -1/+8Totally agree, and the real issue isn't how easy it is to implement, (that's how we got stuck with gasoline for so long) but what is the most efficient way to store energy in a portable format. I can tell you right now that batteries in their current incarnations will never be the right answer to that problem.
- prisoner24601, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7The plug in hybrid is the critical next step. We need to develop vehicles with electric drivetrains, but consumers will NOT broadly accept limited range battery-only vehicles. The series-hybrid plugins resolve the range issue, and once they start to get significant market share, the fundamental design of the car lets you swap the "extender module" from being internal combustion/gasoline to ICE/diesel, ICE/ethanol, ICE/hydrogen, or Fuel Cell Hydrogen. For that matter the extender module can be dropped entirely when/if battery range becomes sufficient. Anyone pushing battery-only electrics over plug-ins for environmental reasons is 100% shooting themselves in the foot.
It's all about having a workable electric *drivetrain* that can stay in all-electric mode up through freeway speeds. Once we get our foot in the door on that by getting a large number of those vehicles on the road everything else is simple evolutionary steps forward on the same fundamental design. - Berkana, on 11/05/2009, -3/+8To understand why hydrogen will NEVER break even short of being able to violate the laws of physics, you have to take a look at how many loss incurring steps there are between generating the energy to its consumption when hydrogen is used as an intermediary:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Presently, hydrogen is stripped from hydrocarbons, which are far richer in hydrogen than water. Unfortunately, hydrocarbons come from petroleum, and that doesn't leave us any better off when it comes to energy independence and sustainability. Petroleum-sourced hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline, and has had much of its energy--held by the carbon backbones of hydrocarbons--stripped away. Hydrogen generated from water doesn't make sense because generating hydrogen takes electricity, which needs some power source; in the end, it just goes into a fuel cell to be turned back into electricity and water vapor. In other words, water-sourced hydrogen isn't fuel; it's a battery, and a very lousy one. If hydrogen is serving only as a battery, it must be compared to existing batteries, and by any metric of comparison, hydrogen fails to meet cost effectiveness and efficiency requirements. - prisoner24601, on 11/05/2009, -2/+7A battery-only EV will satisfy 90% of most drivers TRIPS which means it is 100% unable to satisfy most drivers NEEDS. I've watched that entire movie. It's fascinating, but the disconnect from the Hollywood elites who had the luxury of getting and using an EV1 as a SECOND CAR somehow thinking that it would work for most people was remarkable.
Almost no one will accept a car that will be unable to accommodate their unexpected need to drive more than XX miles NOW at THIS MOMENT. There is no way that any significant numbers of people will say "I don't mind if today when I go to the office and have an emergency client meeting come up in a city 200 miles away that I'll have to spend the next hour renting a normal car from Avis." No one thinks "I'll buy a computer that works 9 hours without a problem and then just doesn't for one hour." 90% of TRIPS is totally unacceptable for the overwhelming majority of drivers. I don't accept a refrigerator that keeps my food cold "most of the time" and only spoils it "occasionally."
The EV1 was only HALF the solution. It was never going to work without a small ICE generator that the driver can OPTIONALLY use to charge the batteries to never be stuck on the side of the road.
Sure, celebrities like Jay Leno and Mel Gibson thought the EV1 was great, but they have a stable of regular cars too. They have the option of owning a limited range vehicle because they have immediate fallback to a "regular car" in their garage that they can drive on a 500 mile trip NOW if they need to.
I deeply wish people would stop trying to bring back the EV1. Yes, GM put a bullet in its head prematurely, but it NEVER was going to be anything other than a niche solution. The Volt, on the other hand, is exactly what we need: All the advantages of the EV1 and NONE of the drawbacks.
Plug In Hybrids FTW! - Berkana, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5That's not hydrogen's biggest problem; that's the fuel cell's biggest problem. Hydrogen's biggest problem is that generating, transporting, and storing it costs too much. If you're using electricity to make hydrogen out of water, and then using the hydrogen in a fuel cell just to turn it back into electricity and water, the hydrogen merely serves as a battery, but by any metric used to judge batteries, hydrogen is an extremely lousy electricity storage medium.
- 3tcp, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4The promise of an infrastructure that powers both our homes and our transportation trumps anything that other options have to offer. EV's grant the ability to utilize currently wasted electricity that is produced from coal and nuclear plants during off-peak hours. Electric would maximize the efficiency of our society's resources.
- GrammerPants, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4Yeah then do you remember what happened? Not something I'd like to happen driving down the highway.
- fooljoe, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4It's nice that you *think* hydrogen is more promising than battery tech in the short to medium term; but you're wrong.
*Yes batteries wear out, but so do fuel cells, and much faster. Unless they use pure oxygen and expensive technical-grade hydrogen, contaminants will cause the stack to rapidly deteriorate.
*Fuel cells may produce the same amount of electric current as long as they have a fuel source, but that presents a problem for sudden acceleration events; and they also have the drawback of a lag before useful power is produced and the inability to store energy recaptured from regenerative braking.
Therefore all fuel cell vehicles ALSO REQUIRE LARGE BATTERIES! It's like making an already expensive battery-electric vehicle and then adding on the ridiculously expensive and space-hogging fuel cell stack and hydrogen tanks. All for the "benefit" of being able to fill up with ridiculously expensive hydrogen and consuming more than twice as much energy per mile driven as a BEV due to the superfluous lossy energy conversions. - aecarol, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7Anybody can "make" hydrogen (i.e. liberate from water, or other chemistry), the only problem is how much power did that take? How much power will you get back by combusting it or using it in a fuel cell?
You will get far less of it back than you originally put into it.
It's lossy because you lose power going from electricity to hydrogen, then you lose more power going from hydrogen back to electricity (or through combustion)
Hydrogen for power is a scam. Hydrogen for industry is normally obtained as a by-product of other processes and is available in the quantities needed. Using it to power cars would require far more of it than we are doing today. It would require power on a grand scale to contemplate and it's terribly inefficient. - frsrblch, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlemen ...
- Berkana, on 11/05/2009, -2/+5@rizzo2008:
A solar generator on the top of the roof would not be able to produce enough hydrogen to fuel even a single car; factor in the losses through the solar panels (current panels are about 18% efficient, the 41% efficient silicon PV material isn't cost effective yet), and the losses during electrolysis, etc. and you have a dismal conversion ratio.
Hydrogen is extremely poor as a storage medium when it comes to energy density. It is incredibly energy dense on a MJ/kg metric, but a kilogram of hydrogen takes up a huge volume; volumetrically, hydrogen is one of the lowest density ways of storing energy.
If our goal is energy independence and sustainability, renewably generated electricity is the way to go, and batteries still serve this role better than hydrogen, even though they have much lower energy density. This is because on the basis of acreage of land, solar electricity is more efficient than biofuels by far:
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1 ...
http://www.ecogeek.org/biofuels/752
But I agree, in the short run, nothing beats fuel in an efficient engine. - Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3jeeze THEY SHOVED A TUBE INTO THE CARB off course they were going to get a flair up. FCDN's point is valid but he does not realize while an ICE can RUN on hydrogen it would take an ass ton of hydrogen to get any range.
HFC's are far more efficient than COMBUSTING the hydrogen and even those are having trouble with not being able to STORE enough hydrogen on board for a usable range. - stubear, on 11/05/2009, -4/+7Hydrogen fuel cells also already work or did you not bother to read the article? The difference is currently they are costly to build and the fuel cell technology isn't to a mass production state due to the use of platinum. Ignoring the cost of platinum for the moment, there simply isn't enough to use even if it were as inexpensive as tin or lead. Research in to HFC will be as beneficial, if not more so, then EVs as it will be able to replace an existing infrastructure and require less change in habits or drivers then EVs. Traditional gas stations could easily switch over to hydrogen stations. Changing them to charging stations is not only impractical, it's ludicrous. Also, the current power grid won't be able to tae the strain of plug-in EVs until there is substantial improvements to the infrastructure. EVs were a dumb idea in the 70s and early 80s and they are still a dumb idea now. That MIGHT improve but the technology has a lot longer to go then HFCs.
- Greengoo, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3I do agree with your point, but also realize that there is some combative practices going on, and we need at least one of these technologies to catch on ASAP. The tango back and forth between the two is delaying this. I completely 100% agree we need to keep researching both, but the one that's already production ready (EV) needs to get our blessing first to eliminate the existing non-sustainable system.
- rizzo2008, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Finally some sense injected into the whole energy debate! Look what happened with government subsidized corn ethanol. It not only was a complete failure from an environmental standpoint but it kept out sugar cain and cellulosic ethanol which were more efficient ways to produce it anyway.
- Berkana, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4Regeya: This is because technology is constrained by the laws of physics. No future technology can surmount the laws of physics, and like it or not, hydrogen inserts several unavoidable levels of conversion which consume energy. No technology we could possibly develop will do away with these losses if we insist on using hydrogen as an end, rather than recognizing that it is merely a means to an end (storage of electricty), and that there are other means to that end which are more effective.
To see what I mean about the lossy steps which are unavoidable when using hydrogen as an electricity storage medium:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
My biggest gripe is that people treat future technology like it is some sort of magic for doing impossible things and therefore enormous sums of money are worth spending on dead ends because "future technology" will make it work and justify the expense; this is not how it works. Technology can achieve amazing things which are impossible now, but it cannot violate the laws of nature. - Mothrog, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Uh, there are plenty of battery technologies out there, and last time I looked all hydrogen fuel cells required the precious metal platinum.
- fooljoe, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Let me fix that for you:
"Traditional gas stations could easily switch over to charging stations." They already get electrical service, like every other business and residence. All they'd need is an upgrade, or perhaps some form of storage like battery banks or flywheels to store up large amounts of cheap off-peak juice. Besides, the demand for charging stations would be very small, as it's much more convenient for EV drivers to fill up at home every night and would only need them for emergencies.
"Changing them to hydrogen stations is not only impractical, it's ludicrous." Hydrogen transportation and storage is notoriously difficult. As the lightest element, composed of just a single proton and electron, hydrogen leaks through almost all materials, including steel. And it must be highly pressurized or cooled to liquid form to control the volume required, which involves tremendous energy costs.
The alternative of on-site hydrogen generation is just as bad or worse, as efficiencies would be much lower, and the average filling station would not have nearly enough area for the amount of solar panels or other clean energy sources required to produce the required energy on-site. A station producing hydrogen on-site would end up requiring more electrical service than an EV charging station. Ludicrous indeed. - AgmLauncher, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Batteries haven't evolved enough in 200 years because of the ICE, and because the transistor didn't exist until recently.
The demand for battery power is ENORMOUS now, which will spur development at a significant pace.
We're already at a point where we have practical battery packs for vehicles. Tesla's vehicles can go 240 miles on a charge. That's more than my 14 gallon tank can carry my V6 mid-sized sedan. The only thing that needs to be improved is energy density so the battery packs can be smaller and lighter.
Hydrogen is just a bad, bad idea. The infrastructure we need to build it, the inefficiency of creating it, compressing it, and transporting it is just silly. - LokitheComplex, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Isn't this really a debate about what makes the best electric battery hydrogen, lithium ion or something else. I don't think hydrogen is the best battery we can make.
- Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Let me ask you something. ASSUMING your not limited by parking assuming you PHYSICALY CAN have a second car (about 80% of us can)
Would you own a "spare" car if it was for all intents and purposes NOTHING out of pocket to buy?
When I say nothing out of pocket I am going to qualify that. I mean you will spend NO MORE DOLLARS next month than you spent LAST MONTH.
Let me clarify this for you. If it were not for our government and out car companies you would be able to buy an FULL battery electric car with over 100miles range on a charge for UNDER $5500 TOTAL. (this is factoring in the Government $7500 rebate for ev and hybrid purchases)
$13,000 if you don't want to use the government rebate. TOTAL no rebates no vouchers no incentives no tax credit. ACTUAL RETAIL PRICE.
Now since 99% of us would use the $7500 rebate I am going to use that number.
What is the monthly payment on a $5500 loan?
HOW MUCH DO YOU CURRENTLY SPEND IN GAS?
Need I say more? the car is FREE it would cost the mass majority of us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE out of pocket than we are ALREADY SPENDING right now.
Most of us buy MORE GAS each month than the cost of the monthly payment on a $5500 loan.
Now off course this all sounds good but how do you get one for $13,000
Thats the easy part. all the tech besides the battery is OFF THE SHELF.
The battery we know costs $4500 FULL RETAIL. this price is quoted from both GM and the batteries creators Ovonics over 10 years ago when GM worked with them to put them in the EV1 and the RAV4EV from toyota (which BTW gets 80-110 miles to a charge)
you can buy an electric motor RIGHT NOW for around $2000 and the same $2000 for the controller. $500 for the charger.
thats a total of $9,000 so far.
I can go into a nissan or other similar dealer and buy a gasoline powered car OFF THE LOT for under $9,000 I have seen them for $8,000 stripped down. BRAND NEW 2009-2010 models.
now take that car and make it what the industry calls a "glider" ie removing the running gear.
No engine.
No transmission.
No exhaust
No emissions
No smog
No computers ECU's sensors etc..
No fuel system
No Cooling system.
ALL OF THAT IS GONE. these new electric motors have enough torque to go DIRECT DRIVE no transmission needed.
all of that adds up to WELL OVER 50% the value of that $8,000 car but to be conservative I will use 50%
thats another $4,000 totalling $13,000 FULL RETAIL PRICE MSRP to the consumer. (NOW are you starting to understand why GM did NOT WANT to make an EV once they realized this would be the inevitable end result?)
The cars by design by nature by reality are cheaper and longer lasting with almost ZERO maintenance compared to gasoline cars. There is basically no moving parts except the electric motor which will WELL outlast you. (both cars have the same wheels and axles so thats equal between them)
I mean EVEN GM's first generation EV1's only cost them $80,000 to build (THEIR PRICE QUOTE)
Think about that. a brand new electric prototype $80,000 for the hand built prototypes. Pretty damned cheap. and economies of scale kick in REALLY FAST with electrics. its all solid state stuff.
What really started to scare GM (which mothrog below is clueless about) is everytime a leasee brought a car in for mandatory maintenance check the mechanics report always ended with basically NOTHING TO REPAIR.
They pretty much NEVER broke down. (no kidding they are such SIMPLE machines there is not much there TO break down)
Forget the EV1 it was an extreme prototype. The toyota RAV4EV was a better example with its 4 person carrying capacity NORMAL looks (though I LOVE the look of the EV1) and its acceptable 80-110 mile range. (BTW MSRP was $42,000)
I always hear people who listen to the propoganda exclaim what happens if I want to go more than 100miles.
HMM not only do you HARDLY EVER go more than 100 miles but let me think about this.
ahh YOU DRIVE THE GOD DAMNED GAS CAR YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW !!!
WOW that was so hard my brain hurts. Grrr....
Think about this. that second car will basically cost you NOTHING OUT OF POCKET each month. (its going to use about $150 in electricity PER YEAR) over 11,000 miles! do the math.
with mass introduction you will RAPIDLY see battery technology advance in I predict 10 years after MASS MARKET dispersion of PURE battery electric cars we will have 500 mile range per charge tech affordably in the hands of everyone. Thats my prediction anyway.
The next CRAP argument I hear is how long will the battery last? well we actually have REAL WORLD examples of batteries IN rav4EV's to test this on. (including the one toyota tested to 300,000 miles in japan!)
they are good to 80% SOC by 250,000 miles.
for the average person this is IN EXCESS OF 20 YEARS before they even need to THINK about replacing that $4500 battery. Most people keep a car for 9 years tops. this means you will NEVER EVER have to replace a battery even if you keep the car for DOUBLE the average.
Hydrogen is a god damned scam. a RIP OFF on the american people designed to keep us paying exhorbidant prices at the pump SLAVES to corporations.
The Volt is a sick joke. a horrible SLAP IN THE FACE to the american public.
30 miles? your kidding right? a $40,000 car 10 years of further advancement and you cut the range to 1/4th what you were already getting 10 years ago?
Is that supposed to be some sort of joke? (they say it has 40mile all electric range but at 30 miles the onboard gas generator turns on so its 30miles all electric)
Take a guess what the average range of a homebuilt lead acid battery electric car is? 35-40miles
DO YOU REALLY think this is a coincidence? its a stop gap solution while they try to get Hydrogen working well enough to shove it down our throats.
I will DIE before I buy a hydrogen fuel cell car. its an insult to my intelligence. its a slap right across the face a big ***** YOU from the auto makers. - Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2No Hydrogen will be the next generation of vehicles if at all possible. The car makers are going to do EVERYTHING they can to make this happen.
Because Hydrogen is EXTREMELY corporate friendly (IE EXPENSIVE High maintenance and ridiculously expensive to fuel ie PERFECT corporate car)
THAT is why they KILLED the EV and are pushing as hard as they can for hydrogen.
EV's are CHEAPER than gas cars and last many times longer with virtually ZERO maintenance.
the batteries last 3 times longer than the typical person KEEPS a car (9 years the batteries are good for 20-25 years or MORE NIMH here not Lithium)
They could build a 100mile range 4 door mid size sedan EV for $13,000 RIGHT NOW if they so desired to. They DO NOT. see my post above for the verifiable details on how its possible to do an EV for $13,000 FULL MSRP) - 3k4M, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2only in the lab... that technology is far from scale up.
- TheHerk, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3That is a fantastic movie. I hope many people view it.
- oriondr, on 11/05/2009, -2/+4Nobody wants to refuel their laptops. The idea of hydrogen fuel cells are just not well thought through, especially when you consider we still don't have an effective way to store it without it slowly leaking out of its container.
- whosmav, on 11/04/2009, -4/+6Why couldn't they have just rolled on with EV's when they could have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39K36Rw7LYc - rizzo2008, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Unlikely petroleum costs are going to rising dramatically even in the short to medium term. Even though prices have essentially collapsed compared to what they were during the summer of 2008 petroleum supplies are very tight and will remain that way for the rest of our lifetimes pretty much. Furthermore reserves are declining and at the present consumption rate traditional petroleum reserves will be depleted in 30-40 years (although in reality it takes much longer than that because an oil field's production slows as the field nears the end of its life and well pressure drops).
Prices will force us to make this change with or without government subsidies or taxes. - AlyxVance, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I'm sure both technologies are feasible, but the hydrogen infrastructure does not exist, whereas electricity is everywhere.
- Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Good for you fooljoe but your wrong on the twice the power.
Grid to wheels efficiency of a BEV is 89%
Grid to wheels efficiency of a HFC is 24%
ie it uses over THREE TIMES more energy to do the same thing and HUNDREDS of times the cost. to go 100 miles in an HFC is going to cost the end user (IGNORING the crazy cost of the car and higher maintenance costs) about $21 while the same range on an EV would cost $2
$19 MORE PER 100MILES for the HFC car.
No thanks. - dalittle, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2when you think about hydrogen as a storage medium then it makes sense. As you figure out ways to make hydrogen with less power you can use that without having to rebuilt the entire infrastructure.
- Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2$4500 more than 100 miles range. 4 hours recharge time and good for 20-25 YEARS before you need to even think about replacing them.
MORE than enough for over 90% of the population. - Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2sure one that no one can afford.
- Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I don't care about energy density. I care about energy COST per mile.
and Gasoline and other liquid hydrocarbons can not even TOUCH battery electric in this the ONLY valid real sensible issue at hand. IE COST.
Cost to drive a BEV 100 miles? $2
Cost to drive an HFC 100 miles? $21
Cost to drive an ICE 100 miles? $12
Enough said. - Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Go check out your local copy of a periodic table online. take a note of the VOLUME hydrogen consumers.
of that 20 gallons of HHO your injecting about 2 gallons of hydrogen.
your can can burn 2 gallons of hydrogen in about 3 second. you aint adding *****. when you get upwards of 500 gallons per hour THEN you might see some real mpg improvements. and ONLY if your using a battery pack to drive that generator.
the issue is not can it run on hydrogen. YES IT CAN no argument from me there I saw it done.
the issue is CAN YOU MAKE ENOUGH OF IT to make a difference.
20 GPH man what are you doing running it off a 9v battery? - spworm, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3Electric cars with batteries predate the combustion engine. They had EVs with batteries in the 1800s.
(source:http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsel ...
If batteries haven't evolved enough in 200 years, why shouldn't we keep developing hydrogen as that seems at least to be a newer and faster evolving technology? - Nerys, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2ONBOARD Hydrogen generation CAN NOT WORK.
It will take more power from your gasoline engine to MAKE the hydrogen than the hydrogen will give you back in increased fuel economy. IE you will buy MORE gasoline not less.
the only practical way is to have a BATTERY PACK separate from the engine to generate the H2.
THIS MIGHT WORK. but never 100% hydrogen generation since it takes 3 times more energy to make hydrogen to go 1 mile than it does to use battery power to go 1 mile and this is for FUEL CELL hydrogen power.
but DIRECT COMBUSTION of the hydrogen you need more like 7-8 TIMES the hydrogen. Meaning if you had a battery pack large enough to go 100miles on combusting hydrogen you ALREADY HAVE a battery pack capable of driving a BEV 700-800 miles which is NOT POSSIBLE with current battery technology.
You might be able to do this to BOOST your fuel economy though. while still inefficient efficiency is not the issue here. COST IS. and the electricity to recharge your battery pack at home is far far cheaper than the gasoline at the pump.
SO if you add a modest battery pack and an H2 generator in your car with enough battery power for your commute you MIGHT see a gain in fuel economy and a lower of cost via using your home electricity to recharge the battery. - Greengoo, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2EV tech and Fuel cell tech represent two completely different types of power production and use. Fuel cells are not EV. Yes they're both electric. No, they're not the same.
- psychoace, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Also I wouldn't call myself a full "Enthusiast" of battery only EV's. I'm just for any alternative that allows more choice for the consumer to choose from when it comes to providing fuel for there car. I think the thing that really killed us these past 100 years was that gas was the standard for fuel. I still think gas should be used but to have it be the only source set cars back a long way.
I will admit you did make a good point and I better understand and will try my best to demonize less the hybrid movement. It sucks to only have the EV1 and the Volt to base my points on (both are damn near the same car) but I can't base anything on factitious information and those cars are the only facts right now. The Tesla shows hope and I hope the deal they made with the government will show progress in helping other cars reach the milestones they have accomplished. - psychoace, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I guess maybe because I live in a world of computers I see stuff as a dive head first and make stuff super expensive now so later on it can be cheaper and more efficient (this goes for things like Blu Ray players and video cards). I think that a full electric car can work and be a great start for people who do light traveling. Even if it's expensive, people would still want to buy it. A small niche group yes but still people will be funding the progress of the technology and by the time it becomes efficient enough to maybe go up to 500+ miles on a single charge (if your thinking about traveling out of state) or allows for quick recharge the backbone will be there to help consumers and it will be cheaper. Think if everyone bought an electric car within the next two years how well is our infrastructure setup to deal with an electric car? We have minimal mechanical expertise we have very few electric charging stations. Tow companies have no resources into helping a stranded driver who has no juice to help get the driver back on the road. We have real program to help a huge amount of people dispose of batteries. We have no hazmat containment crews setup for this kind of situation at the size we need. If we build the car to fast the consumer will be so ahead of the curve they will be turned off by how inconvenient it is to drive it. I would say take it slow and ease it into the public and also the governments that are already low on cash for public programs as it is.
- fooljoe, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1The problem with hydrogen is not just that the fuel cells used to power FCEVs with it are so difficult to make; it's also that the hydrogen itself is so difficult to make, compress, store, and transport.
A much better question is why don't we run more cars on compressed natural gas? Much of the infrastructure is already in place, it's easy to modify an ICE to run on CNG, and most hydrogen today is made from natural gas anyway! - JBizness, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Natural gas would be a temporary solution. I know it's a lot cleaner and we have a lot of it in the U.S., but it's still a finite resource. Even if it would work for the next 200 years, why not focus on something sustainable now?
- fooljoe, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1wow very compelling argument
- prisoner24601, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Intriguing. I'm honestly fascinated that there are people sticking up for the EV1 in light of the Volt.
The fact that MANY families have more than one car isn't significant here. The issue is do they have a SPARE car that no one else is using for the situations where an EV1 is inadequate. I'm not sure if you don't see that issue or just don't want to see that issue.
Let's say I'm the "Average American" in your example and I bought (to keep things simple) 3 Chevy Malibu sedans for $25,000 each. I, my wife, and my driving teenager can all go anywhere at any time for any distance.
You would suggest that instead, my "car mix" for my family should be something like one Malibu and two EV1's. Or perhaps (just to make the scenario more mild because I genuinely don't want to set up a straw man version of what you are suggesting...) we'll go with 2 ordinary Malibu sedans and one EV1 that Junior can use primarily to get to school and back.
Now I'm considering this purchase. (Let's make it even easier and assume at the beginning I had the two sedans and my kid JUST got a driver's license so I'm actually about to buy the third car and have only had two up to this point. Do I buy an EV1?
Well I have to ask myself: "OK, for $25k I get a car that Junior can go anywhere, anytime in. I will never have to hear him ask to borrow my car for the ski trip he and his friends are going to take, etc. If I get him an EV1, there will not be a problem MOST of the time, but SOME of the time it will disrupt me or my wife. And when he goes off to college, the EV1 definitely will not work for him there since he won't be able to charge it in the dorm. So will I send him to college with my wife's car? Then she'd have the EV1 and need to borrow my car even more often than Junior did..." etc. etc. etc.
If you are Jay Leno, none of this matters. You have a car for every day of the week. (And I think you know that's what my comment was describing...) If you are an average American, whatever number of cars your family has, there really isn't any one of them that you are OK with it "only *occasionally* being inadequate because I'll use my wife's" because you know ALL the cars you have are regularly being used by someone who on any given day may-or-may-not need to drive over 100 miles.
But just to be thorough on this point, if I can get 3 Malibu's for $75,000 and have "100% unrestricted travel" just how much of a discount do you think people would need to have say:
A) 3 EV1's where all members of the family occasionally have a problem
B) 2 EV1's and 1 Malibu where two people occasionally have a problem we have to work around
C) 1 EV1 and 2 Malibus where one member is occasionally inconvenienced.
Would I accept that problem if the three cars cost me $70,000 instead of $75,000? Pretty unlikely. I'm not going to spend $20,000 for a car that doesn't fit my needs 10% of the time I need it to when I can buy one that meets 100% of my needs for $25,000.
Would I do it if the mix of two regular cars and one EV1 was $60,000. Sure. If an EV1 was $10,000 then it's more appealing. The problem is that an all-electric doesn't offer that sort of discount, even though it demands a significant "usability hit" by nature.
Why people keep hoping to go back to the EV1 just makes me scratch my head, but there are always a few posts in these topics. I can't understand why you don't get behind the Volt. Once it is on the market, the natural evolution of the product will be to constanly improve the battery so that it goes from 40-mile all-electric range to 60, to 80, etc. Eventually you'll HAVE the exact car you want, one that can go far beyond the number of miles you want to travel in a day without using any gas. There will be a gas engine in it, but for you (and most drivers) that gas engine will NEVER turn on. For those of us who at least occasionally need longer range, we won't be restricted.
It the Volt gets to market, it will be the first step on a road to exactly where you want to go.
If the EV1 came back today, it wouldn't get most people to buy it. The "range anxiety" issue is jsut too strong for MOST people, even if it isn't an issue for you personally.
The Volt is perfect. It's all the strengths of the EV1 and none of the weaknesses. - LokitheComplex, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1What like international banking?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is