Electric Cars

[ddrueding]

I had an idea, and searched for a good thread to put it in, but all our electric car babbling is scattered around and in the "random" thread.

All the discussion about high-speed charging of electric cars goes something like this:

"To charge a car in 10 minutes would take a 100kW supply to every house, and that is impossible".

Why not have another bank of batteries, better yet ultracaps, at the house on a slow charger. Then when the car gets home it can connect to this stored electricity and charge at whatever speed the car can handle. This combines well with the smart grid, allowing you to use the cheapest electricity and charge your car whenever you want.

 

[jtr1962]

Nothing wrong at all with that idea other than the added cost of the bank of batteries. I'll go one step better, however. It makes even more sense if you can dual purpose the home battery bank. The majority of the time fast home charging probably is just not needed, but I can see people saying it's nice to have it just for those times when it is. Fine, so let's use the home battery bank to either store off-peak power for use at peak times, or better yet to store solar power for use when the sun isn't shining. This would be what the battery bank would be used for 99% of the time. For the rare times you need to recharge your car quickly, thus draining the battery pack, you would just use grid power instead of stored solar power that night ( or peak power instead of off-peak power ).

And yes, in my opinion ultracaps will be where it's at for electric vehicle use sometime in the next decade.

 

[BingBangBop]

Ultra caps may work, but super-quick discharge of a set of batteries would produce high heat and that would probably kill the batteries in short order making that cost ineffective.

 

[Bozo]

Hmmm...I don't think you can charge a battery with a battery. At some point the dead batterty and the supply battery would equalize at some point below full charge.

 

[BingBangBop]

Hmmm...I don't think you can charge a battery with a battery. At some point the dead batterty and the supply battery would equalize at some point below full charge.

There is no inherent reason that the batteries need to have the same charge capacity. The recharging system could have a much larger AH rating and thereby not equalize at a point below the full charge of the smaller car battery and not totally discharge either so the lifespan would not be weakened.

I think the real issue here is heat for both batteries. You can have active cooling, but that will slow down the recharge cycle and the higher the heat, the shorter the lifespan. You'll end up with the tradeoff's between recharge speed, cost, and lifespan (just another form of cost). Unless you are very good at design, it just won't be cost-effective at the desired quick charge times wanted (comparable to how long it currently takes for a gasoline fill-up).

One wonders if it just wouldn't be cheaper in the long run for society to upgrade the entire electrical delivery system so as to deliver much higher than 240V rather than having a gigantic battery in every garage. I'm absolutely sure that it would be environmentally better. Also, if a great percentage of people buy into battery-electric cars and battery-based recharge stations then where will we get the rare-earths that are necessary for these high capacity batteries?

At this point, I would contend that ultra capacitors have a much better likelihood of being cost effective than current battery tech.

 

[Stinker]

All-electric cars are a nice idea, for a 2nd car.

No way I want to be stranded if I forget to plug it in one day or have a temporary power outage that doesn't allow me to charge the batteries when I need to. Or, if I have to run to the hospital or the doctor for something and my car is not charged enough to get me there. Or....if I just want to go somewhere spur of the moment. No thanks.

 

[flagreen]

Can you imagine the drain on power resources nation-wide if we go all electirc in this counrty? We'll be building new power plants all over the place. Fossil fuel plants too by current standards possibly negating any energy savings the electric vehicles provide (?).

 

[Pradeep]

I had an idea, and searched for a good thread to put it in, but all our electric car babbling is scattered around and in the "random" thread.

All the discussion about high-speed charging of electric cars goes something like this:

"To charge a car in 10 minutes would take a 100kW supply to every house, and that is impossible".

Why not have another bank of batteries, better yet ultracaps, at the house on a slow charger. Then when the car gets home it can connect to this stored electricity and charge at whatever speed the car can handle. This combines well with the smart grid, allowing you to use the cheapest electricity and charge your car whenever you want.

That's why I like the hydrogen fuel cell based tech the best. You can refill in a few minutes on the go because the energy transfer rate is like gasoline. Solar on the roof of the house/garage can generate the hydrogen at home, and it can be stored in tanks outside as a battery, running thru a fuel cell to deliver power as needed.

Of course fuel cell costs have to come down, I could see a hybrid lithium polymer battery/hydrogen fuel cell vehicle becoming available, allowing the use of both electricity and hydrogen as needed.

 

[LunarMist]

I actually agree with Bill on this one. :eek4:

Let's take something simple and make it way too complicated, expensive and inefficient. :idea:

 

[ddrueding]

Let's stick solar on the roof, a bank of ultracaps in the garage, and screw the grid entirely. That is the simple and cheap solution.

 

[BingBangBop]

Using todays prices, that solar system is going to cost substantially more than the car.

 

[BingBangBop]

Using todays prices, that solar system is going to cost substantially more than the car.

 

[Handruin]

Let's stick solar on the roof, a bank of ultracaps in the garage, and screw the grid entirely. That is the simple and cheap solution.

That only works if your house is in an ideal configuration to make use of the sun on the roof of your house. Lots of houses here in New England (and I'm sure elsewhere) have a lot of trees covering a good span of the area. Also, if the house isn't faced in the most-optimal direction, the solar coverage wouldn't be as good. Combining all those together, it would then become a question of gathering enough energy to charge the caps or batteries to make use for the car.

 

[MaxBurn]

I always pictured a system where you would subscribe to a battery service. Located where you used to have gas stations they just swap out your battery pack when you refuel. The inventory they have on hand gets charged while sitting on the shelf waiting on the next car. Obviously would require pretty heavy standardization, likely never work.

 

[Pradeep]

The workers at the local servo can barely operate the cash registers, let alone replace a couple hundred pounds of battery pack. The closest I have seen to this is the super charge ion (SCiB) battery from Toshiba , apparently good for up to 6,000 cycles, currently used in electric bicycles.

 

[CougTek]

IMO, we should all drive 6 tons electric fork lift. I really liked to drive those.

 

[Pradeep]

IMO, we should all drive 6 tons electric fork lift. I really liked to drive those.

It's all fun and games until you forget to look up as you drive through a doorway.

 

[LunarMist]

The workers at the local servo can barely operate the cash registers, let alone replace a couple hundred pounds of battery pack. The closest I have seen to this is the super charge ion (SCiB) battery from Toshiba , apparently good for up to 6,000 cycles, currently used in electric bicycles.

They have quite low energy density.

 

[sechs]

Who needs quick charging? Just swap it.

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1050971_want-to-hail-an-electric-taxi-cab-head-for-san-francisco

 

[LunarMist]

Maybe that could work in Tokyo or even NYC, but in many less densly populated areas I doubt it would be justifiable to have all those stations and extra batteries lying around in various states of charge.

 

[Stereodude]

That only works if you don't own the battery in your car and therefore don't care about it. I know if I took good care of my battery pack I wouldn't swap it for an one in unknown condition.

 

[jtr1962]

At this point the idea of battery swapping is dead. I wouldn't care for the idea anyway for the reason SD mentioned. Today's batteries can charge in 5 minutes given a suitable charger. As electric cars comprise a greater percentage of vehicles owned, doubtless you'll see gas stations also offering fast charging. And you'll probably have parking lots offering spots with free slow charging as a perk. Remember when gas cars came along there weren't many gas stations. Somehow it all worked out. It's actually far easier to add charging than to build a filling station for either gasoline or hydrogen. In fact, the viability of fast charging in my opinion is the final nail in the coffin of the idea of fuel cell vehicles.

And no, all these electric cars aren't going to significantly add to the grid load since the bulk of them would be slow charging at home during the off-peak night hours. The sole reason for fast charge is when you're taking a trip which exceeds the range of the battery pack. Even with packs delivering only 100 miles, only about 1% of trips would require fast charging. If we have 300 mile range, as Tesla Motors will, then you're covering practically all trips.

And yeah, we need to go this route, or face losing a lot of our mobility now that we're past peak oil. It would be great if we had a high-speed rail system in place now but we don't. We probably won't for another 10-15 years ( best-case scenario ) or perhaps never. That pretty much leaves electric cars as the only viable non-fossil fuel powered mode of transport in most places. Cities of course can still use subways, pedal bikes, or electric bikes. None of these however are really useful in less urban parts of the country. And none are viable for long-distance transport.

 

[Pradeep]

They have quite low energy density.

Yeah downside of the fast charge capability, lithium titanate behaves more like a super cap, than a lithium polymer design with maximum density.

 

[Pradeep]

At this point the idea of battery swapping is dead. I wouldn't care for the idea anyway for the reason SD mentioned. Today's batteries can charge in 5 minutes given a suitable charger. As electric cars comprise a greater percentage of vehicles owned, doubtless you'll see gas stations also offering fast charging. And you'll probably have parking lots offering spots with free slow charging as a perk. Remember when gas cars came along there weren't many gas stations. Somehow it all worked out. It's actually far easier to add charging than to build a filling station for either gasoline or hydrogen. In fact, the viability of fast charging in my opinion is the final nail in the coffin of the idea of fuel cell vehicles.

And no, all these electric cars aren't going to significantly add to the grid load since the bulk of them would be slow charging at home during the off-peak night hours. The sole reason for fast charge is when you're taking a trip which exceeds the range of the battery pack. Even with packs delivering only 100 miles, only about 1% of trips would require fast charging. If we have 300 mile range, as Tesla Motors will, then you're covering practically all trips.

And yeah, we need to go this route, or face losing a lot of our mobility now that we're past peak oil. It would be great if we had a high-speed rail system in place now but we don't. We probably won't for another 10-15 years ( best-case scenario ) or perhaps never. That pretty much leaves electric cars as the only viable non-fossil fuel powered mode of transport in most places. Cities of course can still use subways, pedal bikes, or electric bikes. None of these however are really useful in less urban parts of the country. And none are viable for long-distance transport.

A 5 minute charge for a battery electric vehicle? No.

http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/ev_fueling_time.html

"If a BEV was designed and built to achieve ranges above 200 miles, then the battery banks would require many hours of charging time even with special high current charging circuits. one way to compare fueling times is to consider the power flowing through a gasoline hose when you fill up your current car tank: pumping 13 gallons of gasoline in 3 minutes is equivalent to a power transfer of 10 million watts (10million watts or 10 MW) of electrical power. A typical home 120 Volt/20Amp outlet can deliver 1.9 kilowatts (1.9 kW) power, so the home outlet is over 5,000 times slower than pumping gasoline into your car. Similarly, the average hydrogen filling rate monitored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for over 14,000 fueling events was 0.81 kg/minute which is equivalent to 1.61 MW of power, or 840 times faster than a residential 120 Volt/20AMP circuit.

 

[jtr1962]

Their math is WAY off. A typical BEV battery pack for 150 mile range is about 30 kW-hrs. Let's say the charging efficiency is about 85%. Therefore, you need to pump about 35 kW-hrs into it. To do that in 5 minutes you need a charger which can deliver 420 kW. With a 150 kW level 3 charger you can charge it in 14 minutes, not the 24 minutes the article stated. To charge a battery pack of three times the capacity ( 450 mile range ) in 5 minutes you would need about 1.25 MW. For comparison purposes a subway train starting requires 4 to 5 MW, and yet we have no problems delivering this sort of power. I'm not really seeing what the issues are here. We can and do regularly have MW class loads on the grid, starting with your local superstore. Also, the higher the range of the EV, the less the need for a fast recharge. Figure if you have 450 mile range, by the time you drive that distance, you'll likely be stopping at least 30 minutes to eat and rest anyway. So long as you can refill the tank in that time, all is well. 30 minutes to refill a 90 kW-hr battery pack implies only about 210 kW. Oh, and if the chargers incorporate supercaps, then you can get by with a much smaller average load on the grid while still delivering energy to the BEV battery as fast as it can absorb it. These are all technical issues which are easily fixed. If we go to extreme aerodynamics like the E-Tracer, instead of boxes like the Chevy Volt, you can get two or more times the range easily from any given battery pack.

Left out of the article is the fact that best case, hydrogen is going to cost the equivalent of $5 per gallon gasoline, and also that hydrogen cars still need a small battery to deliver the power peaks needed for acceleration. Electricity on the other hand can provide 150 mile range for a couple of dollars. That fact alone, plus the need to essentially build from scratch hydrogen infrastructure ( at an estimated cost of $500 billion! ), dooms hydrogen. I won't even get into the dangers of putting something explosive and at high pressure into vehicles which the majority can't even competently operate, or that after researching fuel cells for 50 years we still haven't figured out how to get the costs per vehicle under something like $1 million. The whole reason for starting fuel cell research was the fact that batteries of the time just weren't up to the task. All we had were lead acid. Battery development has since overcome all of the obstacles-range, weight, recharge time. The only reason the fuel cell program hasn't been killed yet is politics. The amount of money thrown at what is now a lost cause is embarrassing. If the program were ended now there would be lots of questions as to why it was allowed to continue so long without results, so it goes on like so many other pointless ventures. Besides the supposedly faster refill time compared to BEVs ( and I've already shown that's more or less a wash at this point ), exactly what do fuel cells bring to the table besides increased complexity, increased operating costs, lower efficiency, etc? I'm not seeing one area where they're actually markedly better than BEV. I'm seeing a whole lot of places where they're much worse.

Additionally, the whole fast charge/refill thing is a red herring. It has been from day one. Even Chevrolet admits that now by saying the 40 mile range of the Volt on battery alone will cover most trips, even after they said for years that the 100 mile range of BEVs was "inadequate". How many times a year do most people take a trip where they need to refill enroute? Most driving is commuting or running errands.

 

[jtr1962]

I also forgot to mention in my last post that I do in fact see a great role for hydrogen fuel cells-basically as energy storage to smooth out the intermittant power generation of renewables like solar or wind. This is where they shine. Their inefficiency compared to a battery doesn't matter here because you're recovering excess energy which would otherwise be wasted. Their high cost doesn't matter here because it's small change to a utility. There is no need for a brand new distribution infrastructure as the hydrogen is made and used on site. And there are fewer issues with explosions because everything is stationary. So yes, for this role maybe fuel cells will prove better than chemical batteries or even ultracapacitors. But for vehicles, forget it. It just doesn't make any sense on so many levels.

 

[jtr1962]

Here is a great cost analysis of FCV versus BEV:

http://www.metricmind.com/data/bevs_vs_fcvs.pdf

Even not accounting for the cost of FC infrastructure, BEVs unsurprisingly come out ahead.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think anyone is saying that a 5 minute charge will be possible with a standard wall outlet. If you'll recall the first post in this thread discussed a solution using existing tech. Room-temp superconductors will give the permanent solution later.

 

[Pradeep]

Their math is WAY off. A typical BEV battery pack for 150 mile range is about 30 kW-hrs. Let's say the charging efficiency is about 85%. Therefore, you need to pump about 35 kW-hrs into it. To do that in 5 minutes you need a charger which can deliver 420 kW. With a 150 kW level 3 charger you can charge it in 14 minutes, not the 24 minutes the article stated. To charge a battery pack of three times the capacity ( 450 mile range ) in 5 minutes you would need about 1.25 MW. For comparison purposes a subway train starting requires 4 to 5 MW, and yet we have no problems delivering this sort of power. I'm not really seeing what the issues are here. We can and do regularly have MW class loads on the grid, starting with your local superstore. Also, the higher the range of the EV, the less the need for a fast recharge. Figure if you have 450 mile range, by the time you drive that distance, you'll likely be stopping at least 30 minutes to eat and rest anyway. So long as you can refill the tank in that time, all is well. 30 minutes to refill a 90 kW-hr battery pack implies only about 210 kW. Oh, and if the chargers incorporate supercaps, then you can get by with a much smaller average load on the grid while still delivering energy to the BEV battery as fast as it can absorb it. These are all technical issues which are easily fixed. If we go to extreme aerodynamics like the E-Tracer, instead of boxes like the Chevy Volt, you can get two or more times the range easily from any given battery pack.

Left out of the article is the fact that best case, hydrogen is going to cost the equivalent of $5 per gallon gasoline, and also that hydrogen cars still need a small battery to deliver the power peaks needed for acceleration. Electricity on the other hand can provide 150 mile range for a couple of dollars. That fact alone, plus the need to essentially build from scratch hydrogen infrastructure ( at an estimated cost of $500 billion! ), dooms hydrogen. I won't even get into the dangers of putting something explosive and at high pressure into vehicles which the majority can't even competently operate, or that after researching fuel cells for 50 years we still haven't figured out how to get the costs per vehicle under something like $1 million. The whole reason for starting fuel cell research was the fact that batteries of the time just weren't up to the task. All we had were lead acid. Battery development has since overcome all of the obstacles-range, weight, recharge time. The only reason the fuel cell program hasn't been killed yet is politics. The amount of money thrown at what is now a lost cause is embarrassing. If the program were ended now there would be lots of questions as to why it was allowed to continue so long without results, so it goes on like so many other pointless ventures. Besides the supposedly faster refill time compared to BEVs ( and I've already shown that's more or less a wash at this point ), exactly what do fuel cells bring to the table besides increased complexity, increased operating costs, lower efficiency, etc? I'm not seeing one area where they're actually markedly better than BEV. I'm seeing a whole lot of places where they're much worse.

Additionally, the whole fast charge/refill thing is a red herring. It has been from day one. Even Chevrolet admits that now by saying the 40 mile range of the Volt on battery alone will cover most trips, even after they said for years that the 100 mile range of BEVs was "inadequate". How many times a year do most people take a trip where they need to refill enroute? Most driving is commuting or running errands.

I know there's megawatt loads on the grid. Take a datacenter for example. A backup diesel generator of say 1.5MW is a 16 cylinder turbocharged engine the size of a small minibus, using 2" thick copper lines for transmission to the switching gear. Those lines couldn't be used to plug into a vehicle because of minimum bend radius and sheer weight. And of course the battery in question will melt into a pile of slag before achieving capacity.

Volt is marketing poppycock, a 16KWh pack will be lucky to get you 30 miles. Lutz got 28 miles on his before the gas enging "range extender" kicked in. Look at a full BEV like a Fisker.

You keep mentioning hydrogen and it's dangers, we are talking about gaseous hydrogen at 5,000/10,000 PSI, not the hard to handle cryogenic liquid type. Can you show an example of a consumer hydrogen vehicle blowing up? The gas dissipates in the air, whilst petrol pools waiting for an ignition source.

 

[jtr1962]

I know there's megawatt loads on the grid. Take a datacenter for example. A backup diesel generator of say 1.5MW is a 16 cylinder turbocharged engine the size of a small minibus, using 2" thick copper lines for transmission to the switching gear. Those lines couldn't be used to plug into a vehicle because of minimum bend radius and sheer weight. And of course the battery in question will melt into a pile of slag before achieving capacity.

It all depends upon what voltage the charger sends to the vehicle. Of course, there's probably an upper limit on that for safety reasons. Offhand, I would probably say about 2000 volts. Reasonably-sized conductors ( about the size of jumper cables ) might be able to carry 500 amps, so you could in theory send 1 MW to the car. As for whether or not the battery can absorb it, that all depends on the design. Also, 5 minute charging is nice, but it's not really 100% necessary for BEVs to succeed in the marketplace. If we can get the base range up to 300 miles, combined with 30 to 60 minute recharging, we're covering nearly 100% of trips. It's rare that someone will drive non-stop for more than about 300 miles without stopping to eat/rest for at least 30 minutes. And with better aerodynamics and batteries, I've little doubt we can eventually get BEV range to something like 1000 miles. That pretty much covers everything.

Volt is marketing poppycock, a 16KWh pack will be lucky to get you 30 miles. Lutz got 28 miles on his before the gas enging "range extender" kicked in. Look at a full BEV like a Fisker.

No kidding. The Volt is a great example of what NOT to do. Excessive complexity due to the gas engine, plus not so great range in EV mode, along with poor aerodynamics ( although that's a pet peeve of mine against nearly every vehicle made these days ). I merely bought it up because Chevrolet mentioned that 40 miles is good enough for most trips, and statistics tend to support that. So in light of this fact, even without fast recharge, BEVs with 100 to 150 mile range would satisfy the daily needs of the majority right now. Of course, if you're a traveling salesperson they might not, but that's a niche use.

You keep mentioning hydrogen and it's dangers, we are talking about gaseous hydrogen at 5,000/10,000 PSI, not the hard to handle cryogenic liquid type. Can you show an example of a consumer hydrogen vehicle blowing up? The gas dissipates in the air, whilst petrol pools waiting for an ignition source.

Just the fact that it's under such extreme pressure makes it dangerous, even without ignition. Now if hydrogen had some compelling advantage here, perhaps it might be worth dealing with this additional danger, but it really doesn't. The only upside is fast refueling compared to present BEV technology. However, BEV batteries and chargers are a moving target. And fast recharging is only needed in some very small percentage of trips anyhow. As BEV range increases, there will be less and less need for fast recharge.

I'm not down on fuel cell technology in general, but only its use in road vehicles. It may still have some use for industrial equipment, especially in remote areas where you generate the hydrogen on site.

 

[Pradeep]

In any given car crash, a traditional petrol tank is far more likely to fail and cause a fire than a hydrogen tank.

If a hydrogen tank in a car fails, it's going to vent upwards and burn itself out.

http://policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep/hydrogen/basics/safety.php

Petrol tank, not such a good outcome.

In fact I believe the proper fire fighting procedure for a hydrogen tank failure is to let it self-extinguish.

http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcad...tions/ZaloshCodesandStandardsPresentation.pdf Page 11 onwards.

Hydrogen tanks are fitted with a pressure relief device (so the failure mode will be a leak instead of a burst). They also undergo crush testing, gunfire testing, and drop testing.

 

[jtr1962]

Well, I never said petrol was safer than hydrogen. In fact, if petrol were something brand new, I would guess we would be prohibited from using it in vehicles. That picture reminds me why I pretty much avoid car travel, and totally avoid plane travel. :eekers:

Putting aside whether or not hydrogen is safe, it just doesn't offer any pressing advantages over BEVs from where I stand. In essence, hydrogen is simply a less efficient, more complex, more expensive battery. Yeah, I can see why they're still pushing it despite the fact that better batteries are making it more and more pointless. The automakers will continue their income stream for spare parts when the cars break down. And the same wonderful companies who are selling us oil now will gouge us selling hydrogen.

The beauty of BEVs is the energy came come from any number of sources-coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, tides, nuclear. Sure, you can electrolize water to make hydrogen using any of those sources also, except you need about four times the energy for any given distance compared to just charging a battery. Putting aside the huge efficiency disadvantage, there's no way home hydrogen generators would ever be cost effective. That eliminates the biggest advantage of BEVs-convenient at home refueling. Like I said earlier, I can see hydrogen fuel cells being used in various stationary industrial uses, and perhaps hydrogen fueling airliners as we have no other viable non-fossil fuel source for them. But for ground vehicle use, the physics and economics work against them badly.

 

[Stereodude]

Can you show an example of a consumer hydrogen vehicle blowing up? The gas dissipates in the air, whilst petrol pools waiting for an ignition source.

Right, wrong or indifferent, the Hindenburg probably sealed the fate of Hydrogen in transportation.

 

[Stereodude]

No kidding. The Volt is a great example of what NOT to do. Excessive complexity due to the gas engine, plus not so great range in EV mode, along with poor aerodynamics ( although that's a pet peeve of mine against nearly every vehicle made these days ). I merely bought it up because Chevrolet mentioned that 40 miles is good enough for most trips, and statistics tend to support that. So in light of this fact, even without fast recharge, BEVs with 100 to 150 mile range would satisfy the daily needs of the majority right now. Of course, if you're a traveling salesperson they might not, but that's a niche use.

Nonsense. The Volt is an electric car (for most people) without the biggest drawback of an electric car. You're not limited by or to the capacity of the battery. Sure it's too expensive, but it's a great solution to the problem of immature infrastructure for electric cars.

I wouldn't buy one myself, but I certainly see it as a much more viable option than the Leaf or any pure electric car.

 

[jtr1962]

SD, it all depends upon how far you regularly travel. If most of your trips are within the range of the Leaf's battery, then it probably makes sense. You could just rent a gas car for the few times a year where range is an issue. On the other hand, if you regularly make trips exceeding the battery's range, then it's obviously not going to work. IIRC, the whole reason behind the engine in the Volt was surveys indicating people wanted some sort of insurance against the battery running dry. Of course, I wonder how many of these same people ever bothered keeping track of how far most of their trips were. If they had, they might see that the 100 to 150 miles of a pure electric might cover them 99% of the time. Fact is people too often worry about the what if outlier scenarios, and end up buying many more features than they'll ever need. Not just with cars, but with all products.

 

[ddrueding]

The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, and has all the downsides of an ICE vehicle (complexity, high maintenance, requires gas) and most of the downsides of an electric (expense, added weight, special infrastructure to charge).

There are two groups this is good for: mechanics and oil companies.

 

[Stereodude]

The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, and has all the downsides of an ICE vehicle (complexity, high maintenance, requires gas) and most of the downsides of an electric (expense, added weight, special infrastructure to charge).

There are two groups this is good for: mechanics and oil companies.

So, don't buy one. It's the beauty of the free market system. No one is forcing you to buy a car you don't want (at least not yet).

 

[ddrueding]

Don't worry, there wasn't the slightest chance that I would. I'm simply arguing the merits of electric cars.

 

[flagreen]

Well, I never said petrol was safer than hydrogen. In fact, if petrol were something brand new, I would guess we would be prohibited from using it in vehicles. That picture reminds me why I pretty much avoid car travel, and totally avoid plane travel. :eekers:

Putting aside whether or not hydrogen is safe, it just doesn't offer any pressing advantages over BEVs from where I stand. In essence, hydrogen is simply a less efficient, more complex, more expensive battery. Yeah, I can see why they're still pushing it despite the fact that better batteries are making it more and more pointless. The automakers will continue their income stream for spare parts when the cars break down. And the same wonderful companies who are selling us oil now will gouge us selling hydrogen.

The beauty of BEVs is the energy came come from any number of sources-coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, tides, nuclear. Sure, you can electrolize water to make hydrogen using any of those sources also, except you need about four times the energy for any given distance compared to just charging a battery. Putting aside the huge efficiency disadvantage, there's no way home hydrogen generators would ever be cost effective. That eliminates the biggest advantage of BEVs-convenient at home refueling. Like I said earlier, I can see hydrogen fuel cells being used in various stationary industrial uses, and perhaps hydrogen fueling airliners as we have no other viable non-fossil fuel source for them. But for ground vehicle use, the physics and economics work against them badly.

There are definite advantages of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle imo. They perform on a par in range, speed and convenience (once hydrogen is available in service stations) with today's gasoline powered autos. Other electric motor vehicles have limited range and require charging time-outs from service or require gasoline. This means that hydrogen fuel cell cars will have an easier time winning wide spread public acceptance, without which no electric vehicle technology can succeed.

 

[time]

The fact that the whole process is several times less efficient than gasoline's doesn't concern you?