Cars, it's electric! Do Do Do

[Patrick]

What does petroleum fuel have to do with this? H2 will never compete with cars being powered by electricity the owner create ftom the sun (or wind).

your statement that it didn't make sense to use electricity to generate H to make electricity -
it has everything to do with energy density and the economic formula of delivery and creating mechanical energy.

if they could create a hydrogen pack the size of a deck of cards that delivered the energy of 20 gals of petrol,
and was purchased off the shelf in wawa (now in florida too) dontcha think that would trump the e->h->e "oh that is stupid"
how about lunchbox size? gallon of milk?

why is a tube of toothpaste so large?

 

[shrpshtr325]

What does petroleum fuel have to do with this? H2 will never compete with cars being powered by electricity the owner create ftom the sun (or wind).

the fact that electricity is used in the process to make it(yes in smaller amounts compared to hydrogen) HTF did you miss that? (or are you just being intentionally dense/ignorant)

We've been over this before. Hydrogen has come and gone for cars. It's an inherently silly idea to use electricity to make, store and dispense hydrogen into a car which then uses the hydrogen to create electricity to power said car.

one mans opinion, ^

current viable production processes for hydrogen uses alot of energy(yes generally electricity), but transport and storage has improved significantly in recent years and there are companies working on catalysts which would increase the amount H2 produced from a given amount of energy, (if i can find the articles i will come back and post them).

H2 has several advantages over battery electric as of now including energy density, and refill (recharge) time and the OTR trucking industry is still pointing toward hydrogen over batteries. . . .

 

[Captain Brainstorm]

I agree with your post, but I think electric takes less line time to manufacture and some may see that as more profit. There are far more machined parts in ICE vs electric.

Profit, key word here. That's the only net effect of going electric, profit vs. some perceived and theoretical improvement to the environment.

What does petroleum fuel have to do with this? H2 will never compete with cars being powered by electricity the owner create ftom the sun (or wind).

That's some funny shit right there, owners creating their own power from the sun and wind. If that was technically and logistically feasible, we'd already be doing it on a large scale, like years ago.

 

[rick81721]

your statement that it didn't make sense to use electricity to generate H to make electricity -
it has everything to do with energy density and the economic formula of delivery and creating mechanical energy.

Exactly - and hydrogen loses.

if they could create a hydrogen pack the size of a deck of cards that delivered the energy of 20 gals of petrol,
and was purchased off the shelf in wawa (now in florida too) dontcha think that would trump the e->h->e "oh that is stupid"
how about lunchbox size? gallon of milk?

Impossible. And even if it was, why would I bother with a FCV when I can plug my BEV into my solar powered/battery backup house? Hey here's an equally feasible idea - let's manufacture a wormhole in Jupiter's atmosphere and transports hydrogen directly to earth.

why is a tube of toothpaste so large?

There are different size tubes of toothpaste - but of course this has nothing to do with this discussion!

 

[rick81721]

the fact that electricity is used in the process to make it(yes in smaller amounts compared to hydrogen) HTF did you miss that? (or are you just being intentionally dense/ignorant)

You do realize 40% of electricity today comes from non-fossil fuels, and it will only increase in the future. And that hydrogen is made from methane (natural gas) and uses a large amount of electricity to do so (or are you just being intentionally dense/ignorant)?

one mans opinion, ^

current viable production processes for hydrogen uses alot of energy(yes generally electricity), but transport and storage has improved significantly in recent years and there are companies working on catalysts which would increase the amount H2 produced from a given amount of energy, (if i can find the articles i will come back and post them).

H2 has several advantages over battery electric as of now including energy density, and refill (recharge) time and the OTR trucking industry is still pointing toward hydrogen over batteries. . . .

Consensus opinion:

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3230

https://wernerantweiler.ca/blog.php... electricity is needed,kWh per kg of hydrogen.

 

[rick81721]

That's some funny shit right there, owners creating their own power from the sun and wind. If that was technically and logistically feasible, we'd already be doing it on a large scale, like years ago.

Yes very funny in that owners are doing exactly that right now in places like Florida. What is the feasibility that people will be able to make and use their own hydrogen in the future?

 

[Captain Brainstorm]

Yes very funny in that owners are doing exactly that right now in places like Florida. What is the feasibility that people will be able to make and use their own hydrogen in the future?

Owners will be able to do this, on a limited scale in places like Florida and California, but the likelihood that this will translate to some sort of large scale adoption is bleak. If it were actually feasible, we'd have been powering our homes with wind and solar years ago and the number of coal and nuclear plants would have been scaled back. Its good rhetoric though to keep spewing how "this our future", it fits the current narrative.

 

[ebarker9]

Owners will be able to do this, on a limited scale in places like Florida and California, but the likelihood that this will translate to some sort of large scale adoption is bleak. If it were actually feasible, we'd have been powering our homes with wind and solar years ago and the number of coal and nuclear plants would have been scaled back. Its good rhetoric though to keep spewing how "this our future", it fits the current narrative.

How are you defining "feasible"? Technically feasible? Economically feasible for a household? Economically feasible at a large scale?

I have no idea what things will look like long term, but it's only been pretty recently that solar has been getting to be affordable for a typical household.

 

[SAM]

Owners will be able to do this, on a limited scale in places like Florida and California, but the likelihood that this will translate to some sort of large scale adoption is bleak. If it were actually feasible, we'd have been powering our homes with wind and solar years ago and the number of coal and nuclear plants would have been scaled back. Its good rhetoric though to keep spewing how "this our future", it fits the current narrative.

Assumes technology stands still and does not change. Infeasibility in the past does not always correlate with feasibility in the future. Just because everyone wasn't powering their homes with wind and solar in the past means it is not feasible now or in the future?!?? 🤣

 

[UtahJoe]

@Captain Brainstorm I don't nessesarily agree that electric cars only exist bc of the government.... That would get them into the market, and perhaps it did... But at this point, electric cars are selling very well.. And I don't believe it's bc anyone gives a shit about the environment.... It's bc I can buy a hyundai ioniq for example ... It's as fast as my 400hp 3000lb mustang, awd, loaded with tech, the charging times and network makes it reasonable to live with now....they and alot of the electric cars are just nice daily drivers now that there are good alternatives to Teslas... Good chance I replace my focus with one someday.

 

[rick81721]

Owners will be able to do this, on a limited scale in places like Florida and California, but the likelihood that this will translate to some sort of large scale adoption is bleak. If it were actually feasible, we'd have been powering our homes with wind and solar years ago and the number of coal and nuclear plants would have been scaled back. Its good rhetoric though to keep spewing how "this our future", it fits the current narrative.

Well solar/wind/etc will gradually become the dominant US electricity source in the future. We were stupid to not build more nuke plants 20 years ago but it's still not too late to move to small reactors. As far as owners - again, it will only get cheaper and more efficient in the future. We plan to go tesla panels and 2 powerwall battery packs next year in FL. So even if the grid goes down, as long as the sun keeps shining we are good.

 

[rick81721]

@Captain Brainstorm I don't nessesarily agree that electric cars only exist bc of the government.... That would get them into the market, and perhaps it did... But at this point, electric cars are selling very well.. And I don't believe it's bc anyone gives a shit about the environment.... It's bc I can buy a hyundai ioniq for example ... It's as fast as my 400hp 3000lb mustang, awd, loaded with tech, the charging times and network makes it reasonable to live with now....they and alot of the electric cars are just nice daily drivers now that there are good alternatives to Teslas... Good chance I replace my focus with one someday.

This. And even tesla cybertrucks will soon be as numerous on the roads as F150s today 🤣

 

[shrpshtr325]

You do realize 40% of electricity today comes from non-fossil fuels, and it will only increase in the future. And that hydrogen is made from methane (natural gas) and uses a large amount of electricity to do so (or are you just being intentionally dense/ignorant)?


Consensus opinion:

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3230

https://wernerantweiler.ca/blog.php?item=2020-09-28#:~:text=How much electricity is needed,kWh per kg of hydrogen.

not sure where you get that 40% number (or why you mention that in reply to my post), but for the US at least your overestimating (just look at the first group of pictures)

Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Hydrogen is not only made from natural gas. Plenty of work is being done to make hydrogen out of seawater.

"Exceptional" new catalyst cheaply splits hydrogen from seawater

Green hydrogen can't be viewed as environmentally friendly if it drinks huge amounts of fresh water, or results in the bulk output of toxic chlorine, according to RMIT researchers who say they've come up with a cheap technique that does neither.

newatlas.com

New catalysts steer hydrogen fuel cells into mainstream | Cornell Chronicle

Cornell chemists have discovered a class of nonprecious metal derivatives that can catalyze fuel cell reactions about as well as platinum at a fraction of the cost, which could bring hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles and generators closer to reality.

news.cornell.edu

Researchers discover a way to produce hydrogen and purify water at the same time

University of Alberta researchers have developed a new catalyst that could revolutionize how we generate power and purify water. When placed in any type of water and provided with a small amount of power, the catalyst produces hydrogen that can be fed into a fuel cell to generate electricity...

phys.org

and the amount of energy used is a problem that is being worked by the scientists at many different places. Battery electric cars are definitely getting a major boost from govt policy but i dont believe that they are THE answer to anything. They use chemicals which are hard to recycle (separate) and toxic to the environment (Just in different ways than the fumes emitted by combustion engines, but maybe that makes it all ok).


I keep saying this and will continue to believe it but until battery tech improves significantly (charge time and energy density) battery electrics will not take over despite the
governments best efforts to push them there. Charge time at public chargers needs to be on the scale of <5 minutes for a range of ~350 miles (approx. range of your average car run on gas).



o and then there is this (honestly surprised Toyota is doing anything even remotely interesting)

Toyota and Yamaha are developing a hydrogen-fuelled V8

The RCF’s 5.0-litre eight cylinder is being prepped as a 444bhp hydrogen powerhouse

www.topgear.com

o yea and lets not forget about aerospace, youll never get enough batteries in a passenger jet for the range that people expect from air travel using batteries, turbines or fuel cells are necessary for these industries. I would bet some of the answered developed for aerospace will trickle down to passenger cars.

 

[Captain Brainstorm]

How are you defining "feasible"? Technically feasible? Economically feasible for a household? Economically feasible at a large scale?

I have no idea what things will look like long term, but it's only been pretty recently that solar has been getting to be affordable for a typical household.

All of the above. Solar is affordable for a typical household if you have sufficient southern exposure. And what does it get you? I don't think the capacitive technology exists to get you through the night using a/c, never mind successive days when the sun doesn't shine.

@Captain Brainstorm I don't nessesarily agree that electric cars only exist bc of the government.... That would get them into the market, and perhaps it did... But at this point, electric cars are selling very well.. And I don't believe it's bc anyone gives a shit about the environment.... It's bc I can buy a hyundai ioniq for example ... It's as fast as my 400hp 3000lb mustang, awd, loaded with tech, the charging times and network makes it reasonable to live with now....they and alot of the electric cars are just nice daily drivers now that there are good alternatives to Teslas... Good chance I replace my focus with one someday.

You're right, electric cars don't exist because of the government, Tesla came out with the roadster in the early 2000's, but they're widespread availability now is most definitely because of government incentives and mandates. If it wasn't for that, they would still be niche. Whatever HP they put out is also partially offset by their greater weight.

Well solar/wind/etc will gradually become the dominant US electricity source in the future. We were stupid to not build more nuke plants 20 years ago but it's still not too late to move to small reactors. As far as owners - again, it will only get cheaper and more efficient in the future. We plan to go tesla panels and 2 powerwall battery packs next year in FL. So even if the grid goes down, as long as the sun keeps shining we are good.

Where do you get this from, solar and wind being dominant? And environmentally, how is this so much better? These are not the no-impact and no-consequence technologies that everyone thinks they are. At a very minimum, there's habit loss the results from both, never mind the lack technological viability or energy output. What happens when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow hard enough?

 

[rick81721]

not sure where you get that 40% number (or why you mention that in reply to my post), but for the US at least your overestimating

I get 40% from math: 20% nuke + 20% wind/solar = 40%. 60% from fossil fuels.

Hydrogen is not only made from natural gas. Plenty of work is being done to make hydrogen out of seawater.

NG is the most efficient and cost effective. Get back to us when any of those techs are better/cheaper

and the amount of energy used is a problem that is being worked by the scientists at many different places. Battery electric cars are definitely getting a major boost from govt policy but i dont believe that they are THE answer to anything. They use chemicals which are hard to recycle (separate) and toxic to the environment (Just in different ways than the fumes emitted by combustion engines, but maybe that makes it all ok).


I keep saying this and will continue to believe it but until battery tech improves significantly (charge time and energy density) battery electrics will not take over despite the
governments best efforts to push them there. Charge time at public chargers needs to be on the scale of <5 minutes for a range of ~350 miles (approx. range of your average car run on gas)


o yea and lets not forget about aerospace, youll never get enough batteries in a passenger jet for the range that people expect from air travel using batteries, turbines or fuel cells are necessary for these industries. I would bet some of the answered developed for aerospace will trickle down to passenger cars.

You're all over the place here. Battery tech is constantly evolving. This isn't a discussion on BEVs or FCVs vs current, just BEV vs FCV. And aerospace??

 

[rick81721]

Where do you get this from, solar and wind being dominant? And environmentally, how is this so much better? These are not the no-impact and no-consequence technologies that everyone thinks they are. At a very minimum, there's habit loss the results from both, never mind the lack technological viability or energy output. What happens when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow hard enough?

From here:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698#:~:text=In our Annual Energy Outlook,new wind and solar power.

Who said anything about it being "better"? All it does is reduce CO2 emissions. The wind blows enough, waves never stop, and the sun shines enough in many parts of the country.

Personally, I think we should have been 80+% nuke power by now but 3 mile island scared the snowflakes and here we are.

 

[Patrick]

You're right, electric cars don't exist because of the government, Tesla came out with the roadster in the early 2000's, but they're widespread availability now is most definitely because of government incentives and mandates. If it wasn't for that, they would still be niche. Whatever HP they put out is also partially offset by their greater weight.

The economist in me says that this allowed Tesla to charge $7000 more than they thought people would pay. It worked to their advantage because it was viewed as a premium product, where economics would view it as a replacement product, meaning pricing difference would only be perceived benefits.

 

[Santapez]

The economist in me says that this allowed Tesla to charge $7000 more than they thought people would pay. It worked to their advantage because it was viewed as a premium product, where economics would view it as a replacement product, meaning pricing difference would only be perceived benefits.

Rarely is/was a Tesla sold that didn't mean another car wasn't purchased due to that sale.

The purpose of the $7k benefit is that it meant Tesla could be on an even playing field with other cars in it's same class at the same price roughly and making a profit as opposed to a loss on each model sold. To allow enough adoption leading to the cars being successful due to advances, whether technology or improvements in production no longer requiring the subsidy.

I can't keep track of the government subsidies anymore. Does Tesla still get any?

 

[Patrick]

Rarely is/was a Tesla sold that didn't mean another car wasn't purchased due to that sale.

The purpose of the $7k benefit is that it meant Tesla could be on an even playing field with other cars in it's same class at the same price roughly and making a profit as opposed to a loss on each model sold. To allow enough adoption leading to the cars being successful due to advances, whether technology or improvements in production no longer requiring the subsidy.

I can't keep track of the government subsidies anymore. Does Tesla still get any?

That isn't consumer economics.
They lowered the price when it went away

I agree it was a subsidy, but they positioned it beautifully.

 

[UtahJoe]

I thought I would share this story for @Carson

So I took the mustang out last night with my son...stopped in Denville for some bubble tea for my son....really no place to go last night so I was like...hey lets take a ride over to RT10, I want to look at that KIA EV6 GT....maybe they will let me test drive one. So we drive over...and I love that section of 10 in the mustang bc of the huge concrete divider...it just echos back the sound of the mustang as you drive in the left lane, and its a glorious experience.

Anyway so I pull up front....3 salesman come out and start drooling over the car....asking me about it, etc....So the one salesman....not sure what his deal was, but he starts touching the car with his fingers.....like running his finger down the edge of the fender....than he puts his palm on it....eventually I had to just say...."yo" and give him a head nod....like WTF are you doing man? I mean the amount of people I see who look at a nice car and think OHHHH LET ME TOUCH IT!!!! Anyway....so my son and I go and check out this fancy EV6 GT....and it looks really cool I must say....$65,000 for the fast one is a little bonkers. But we walk around...nobody talks to us. Go inside the showroom where they had 3 of them. We sit in one, hang out for 10 min....nobody comes over. So eventually I left. Soon as I fire the mustang back up the same 3 came running back outside to watch me drive away.