When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just remember that questioning the powers that be when you feel they are mistaken instead of blindly following their doctrine is what created and continues to drive the United States. This goes for believing car manufacturers as well. Industry has proven historically time and again that they are willing to buy and/or bury innovation that hurts their profitability even if it is significantly better than their profitable alternative. I am guessing EV is in some way very profitable in their forecasts either through increase price per unit or by opening up larger market share overseas (i.e. China). I like EV as a hybrid technology or as a stopgap to the next big thing but it would be a mistake to base our entire society on it barring some breakthrough in electric storage/refueling to drive down cost and inconvenience. ICE is the past and the present but that doesn't mean it has to stick around for the future either as long as what comes next is better (even if that is some better form of EV or fusion or whatever).
The manufacturers aren't going EV because of widespread, broad, market demand. They're going there because various governments are forcing them there.
If this was a genuine consumer demand based enterprise, we'd have far fewer EVs on the road than even the relatively small numbers we have now.
I just don't get why we are even discussing Tesla vs. Corvette. One is a commuting car and the other is a toy. Let's not confuse the two. The reality is that the Tesla is unusable on a road course (and will stay unusable in the foreseeable future), but the Corvette is usable on the street (maybe not ideal) and on a track. Your references to Luddites and Netflix 'Behind the Curve' is ridiculous to say the least. So is the argument for carbon footprint (in today's infrastructure).
The manufacturers aren't going EV because of widespread, broad, market demand. They're going there because various governments are forcing them there.
If this was a genuine consumer demand based enterprise, we'd have far fewer EVs on the road than even the relatively small numbers we have now.
I agree that governments are pushing but profitability in the case I cited does not necessarily have anything to do with consumer demand but it does have to do with the market in which you want to sell cars. If in China they say that everyone can only buy EVs then not having one will lose you a lot of money. If you are one of only a couple of choices for EVs when they transition over because you got to the technology first then you gain quite a bit due to lack of choice and it gives you a solid foothold. I guarantee that if a car company went to one of these countries and said they had a better alternative (no exhaust, cheaper etc) that the governments would adopt it. Electric just feels like it is the best of a bunch of mediocre choices at the moment. Hopefully that will change and quickly
I agree that governments are pushing but profitability in the case I cited does not necessarily have anything to do with consumer demand but it does have to do with the market in which you want to sell cars. If in China they say that everyone can only buy EVs then not having one will lose you a lot of money. If you are one of only a couple of choices for EVs when they transition over because you got to the technology first then you gain quite a bit due to lack of choice and it gives you a solid foothold. I guarantee that if a car company went to one of these countries and said they had a better alternative (no exhaust, cheaper etc) that the governments would adopt it. Electric just feels like it is the best of a bunch of mediocre choices at the moment. Hopefully that will change and quickly
I agree, and it's consistent with my point. Your China example is spot on in that regard.
I agree, and it's consistent with my point. Your China example is spot on in that regard.
Exactly, it is the government driving that demand, not the buyer. Take away the subsidies (to manufacturers, buyers, and cities for power) and new CAFE/etc restrictions and EVs disappear.
do they still need Platinum as a conductor? thats a cost barrier that will keep rising unless they can find something else. The issue with all of these is the rely on rare earth elements and cost will simply increase, not decrease if mass production were ever to take place.
Yes, they do. They use about $1500-$1800 worth of platinum. Catalytic converters also use platinum. Mercedes claims they have their fuel cells down to 10 grams of platinum. A diesel catalytic converter uses about 3 grams.
Hydrogen fuel cells are even more impractical than batteries.
1) You still have to put energy INTO water to get H2 out. That energy has to come from somewhere. Right now, that means heating water into superheated steam, injecting the superheated steam into methane and getting H2 and CO2 out. Wait, wasn't the whole point to reduce CO2?
2) Liquid hydrogen only has about 1/4 the energy density of gasoline. The greenies will go on and on about energy per kilogram comparing favorably to gas, but when was the last time you bought your fuel by the kilo? Fact is, it takes 3.75 gallons of liquid H2 to equal the energy available in 1 gallon of gas. So real world, any car that has a 15 gallon tank now will have the equivalent of a 4 gallon tank with H2. Or less trunk space. Or else cars are going to get a lot bigger.
3) Ever try to store liquid H2? You have to store it at something like negative 400 degrees F. otherwise it will turn to gas. You're not going to be able to leave fuel in the tank of your car for a week without some form of refrigeration. Which means the car will need some sort of active refrigeration if the fuel isn't going to evaporate after a couple of days. The amount of energy required to maintain a 500 degree difference between the H2 and ambient is going to be the exact same amount of energy needed to keep an oven at 500 degrees. Not cheap.
Fuel cells will never be more than a niche. There are easier ways already in existence.
I feel like this post is from about 20 years ago.
Hydrogen can and is made with renewable energy sources. California hydrogen filling stations are required to have at 33% of the hydrogen produced from renewable sources, and some stations, this value is 100%.
Fuel cell cars do not use liquid hydrogen. They use pressurized gaseous hydrogen stored onboard the car in carbon fiber tanks.
There are three hydrogen fuel cars available in California: Toyota Marai, Honda Clarity, and Hyundai Nexo. They have ranges of 312 to 380 miles.
Hydrogen can and is made with renewable energy sources. California hydrogen filling stations are required to have at 33% of the hydrogen produced from renewable sources, and some stations, this value is 100%.
Fuel cell cars do not use liquid hydrogen. They use pressurized gaseous hydrogen stored onboard the car in carbon fiber tanks.
There are three hydrogen fuel cars available in California: Toyota Marai, Honda Clarity, and Hyundai Nexo. They have ranges of 312 to 380 miles.
Which proves my point - you're best response is to point to cars ONLY sold in commiefornia, perform like crap, and cost an arm and a leg. I looked at the Hyundai and it costs $60,000 and does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. What a bahgain. What a bahgain fo' me.
And infrastructure is even worse than the electrics - there's only 100 hydrogen fueling stations in California, all on the coast. WHY would I want a car that performs like the 1970's and traps me in either Los Angeles or San francisco?
There were approximately 81 million vehicles sold worldwide last year. Porsche sold approximately 250,000 of them. Even if Porsche went 100% BEV this year, it would still be a drop in the bucket.
I remember watching the moon landing in 1969. I also remember being on duty the day JKF was killed in 1963. I was on duty in a Titan II missile silo and we were seconds away from blowing Russia off the face of the earth. I hugged a 90' long, 10' in diameter, missile with a 10' long reentry vehicle on top(with a powerful nuclear bomb enclosed) just about every day. I bet I've been involved in "new" technology long before you were born.
I watched the moon landing, live in the wee hours of the morning and remember the day JFK was killed when I was in 4th grade. Never heard that we were on the brink of nuclear war over Kennedy's assassination.
Which proves my point - you're best response is to point to cars ONLY sold in commiefornia, perform like crap, and cost an arm and a leg. I looked at the Hyundai and it costs $60,000 and does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. What a bahgain. What a bahgain fo' me.
And infrastructure is even worse than the electrics - there's only 100 hydrogen fueling stations in California, all on the coast. WHY would I want a car that performs like the 1970's and traps me in either Los Angeles or San francisco?
I'm not sure what mission you are on here, but the auto manufacturers and filling stations are just getting started. I seem to recall the same things being said about the first cell phones.
I watched the moon landing, live in the wee hours of the morning and remember the day JFK was killed when I was in 4th grade. Never heard that we were on the brink of nuclear war over Kennedy's assassination.
I'm not sure what mission you are on here, but the auto manufacturers and filling stations are just getting started. I seem to recall the same things being said about the first cell phones.
So the best you can do is deflect from my valid points and talk about cell phones?
Every new technology in its infancy is more expensive than the technology it's replacing. Early adopters always pay the most. And the infrastructure lags at first but then catches up quickly. Also, the cost of EVs will continue to decrease: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09...packs-in-2020/
"This means that compelling and competitively priced EVs will soon be able to successfully compete in even lower priced segments of the auto market, and continue from there to make more and more affordable EVs possible. On this trend line, even the small economy car segment of the auto market (around the $15,000 price point) will see compelling EVs capable of all use cases, including long highway journeys, by 2023."
Don't forget, to help (or completely) offset the higher current purchase price, over the life of a vehicle, with an EV you save on fuel costs, no oil changes, less maintenance (motor requires zero maintenance). Also a side benefit is that your EV can serve as an emergency power source for your home (the battery in your car powering essentials in your home through a reverse feed).
That being said, to address the OP's point- from a performance standpoint, right now EVs are only proven to be good drag racers, not sports cars comparable to the Corvette (the weight and handling doesn't come close, not to mention ability to do multiple laps). They do make great point A to point B cars though.
Last edited by ArmchairArchitect; 02-28-2019 at 09:57 AM.
As long as A and B are within range and you don't have to immediately come back.
Why would you need to turn around and "immediately come back". I know a number of Tesla owners and have yet to see any of these folks turn into a pumpkin.
Wikipedia
Launch: July 16, 1969, 13:32 UTC
Landing: July 20, 1969, at 20:17 UTC. First Step; July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC;
Is possible he is referring to the launch and lives on the west coast which would have been around 5:30am his time.
I had to look up the times, I wasn't alive and wasnt born for almost another 20 years so I couldn't remember.
Possible but the post did say landing. Could have been in Asia too, that would have put it in the middle of the night. My memory comes from the last track change, nasty job, I did before getting discharged. Got the afternoon EST off to watch the landing.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 02-28-2019 at 01:38 PM.
Why would you need to turn around and "immediately come back". I know a number of Tesla owners and have yet to see any of these folks turn into a pumpkin.
Any number of reasons. That's been the point made repeatedly. Just because a EV fits your particular use case doesn't mean it fits everyone's particular use case. Saying they "make great point A to point B cars" doesn't negate the fact that there are times when some have to drive from point A to point B and then back to point A all in the same day and that total is far in excess of the range of current EVs.
I'll give you two that I just did:
1.) My daughter just graduated from Baylor Law. Total round trip without any side trips (like going to the event at the law school after, or lunch with the family after that, or running over to Magnolia so the wife can browse and pickup a few things, etc) puts it at 350 miles. Beyond the range of any EV from Tesla today I believe. Should I just stay overnight to make a Tesla work for me (BTW, I'd have to find a hotel with a charger, not the easiest thing to do in Waco actually). And that range is based on what speed? The 80-85 I was running? With the radio, heat (and AC since it was raining and the windows were fogging), wipers, and headlights on? I doubt it.
2.) A buddy of mine (who has a Tesla ironically) and I needed to run to Austin to hit Winding Road Racing. I wanted to try on new helmets and get my AIM data logger looked at and he had a few odds and ends he wanted to take care of there as well. It is about 250 miles from his house to Winding Road, so about 500 round trip. Assuming no detours or side trips to go get some awesome BBQ (hard to avoid) or TexMex... how do you see that trip working out? And yeah, it was a day trip for us, we took my wife's SUV and left his Tesla plugged into it's charger in his garage.
I too know several Tesla owners who have not turned into a pumpkin. But, using your analogy, I know they don't take their Tesla to every ball for that reason.
02-27-2019, 01:43 PM
