Lamenting the decline of the car

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Your #6 Step would read "... devastate Saudi Arabia, Alberta, Russia ..." though

(Not the end of the world, IMO. Worst case you'd be like Saskatchewan, which is still a decent place to live with their 1M people.)

Maybe - I was wondering who would point that out . Alberta should be in an OK position to do well in the environment I have envisioned. We have a good talent pool, access to wind and solar energy and the oil companies HQ'd here would be obvious candidates to continue doing what they do - sell hydrocarbon. If we do poorly, we only have ourselves to blame.

[ssiguy]

Yes Alberta would have itself to blame but that doesn't mean they would. They would blame the old stand-bys of Ottawa and the Eastern bastards. Unfortunately this always plays well in Alberta probably more so than anywhere else in the country.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is very true that, at least for the time being, hydrogen is not nearly as efficient as standard batteries. The difference however is not as much as what is proclaimed. This is primarily due to the incredible weight of the batteries. Did you know that a whopping 30% of the weight of a Tesla is exclusively due to it's batteries? NYC is considering banning all Tesla SUVs over the Brooklynn Bridge because they exceed the maximum weight allowed on the already old bridge.........3 tons. Standard batteries are more efficient but conversely have to use a lot of that efficiency by hauling around much heavier vehicles.

The transformation over to hydrogen infrastructure is going to be very expensive, there is no argument there. The reality however is that the only espoused alternative is NOT optional. Standard batteries can NEVER, EVER work because they are inaccessible to at least 80% of this planet's population. Telling everyone to have a plug-in is akin to telling everyone to put in solar panels on their roof............optional for SFH in the NA/Australia and some of Europe, farcical for everyone else.

A Mirai has curb weight of 1850 kg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai

[JHikka]

Anyone thinking hydrogen is the future should do some light reading on Iceland's hydrogen bus experiment. It was prohibitively expensive and incredibly unreliable and inefficient.

Originally Posted by NY Times, 2009

The three original hydrogen buses did not lead to a wholesale transformation of the Reykjavik fleet. Instead, now all buses run on conventional fuels. "The bus project has now been terminated; we are waiting for the next generation to be built," Arnason said.

Storing hydrogen in a small vehicle is tricky, so buses were prime candidates for the Icelandic experiment. Enough hydrogen can be stored on board as pressurized gas to operate the buses throughout the day, refueling in less than seven minutes.

For private cars, the storage problem makes it difficult to engineer a car that will travel a long distance without refueling. The Icelanders have experimented with Ford, Mercedes and modified Toyota Prius hydrogen cars.

The cold winter caused trouble for the Toyotas, which did not heat rapidly upon starting and had water leaking into the engine oil. Two engine heaters were installed to fix the problem, but test drivers complained about the limited range the Prius had on hydrogen -- only 100 miles.

The Mercedes fuel cell A-Class exceeded all expectations and performed well in Iceland's harsh climate, according to Icelandic New Energy. Two A-Class vehicles have been driven thousands of miles without needing any service. They proved to have a range of 225 miles at optimum hydrogen pressure.

Fuel cell-powered Ford Focuses and Explorers were also tested, the former with a range of 150-200 miles per tank and the latter with a range of 350 miles -- the longest-range hydrogen vehicle to date. Skulason himself drives one of the Explorers to work every day. "It would be very difficult to go back to a gasoline car if I ever have to," he said.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...l?pagewanted=2

Of course, that was a decade ago, and Iceland is trying again now. Their geothermal technology is pretty neat.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is very true that, at least for the time being, hydrogen is not nearly as efficient as standard batteries. The difference however is not as much as what is proclaimed. This is primarily due to the incredible weight of the batteries. Did you know that a whopping 30% of the weight of a Tesla is exclusively due to it's batteries? NYC is considering banning all Tesla SUVs over the Brooklynn Bridge because they exceed the maximum weight allowed on the already old bridge.........3 tons. Standard batteries are more efficient but conversely have to use a lot of that efficiency by hauling around much heavier vehicles.

The transformation over to hydrogen infrastructure is going to be very expensive, there is no argument there. The reality however is that the only espoused alternative is NOT optional. Standard batteries can NEVER, EVER work because they are inaccessible to at least 80% of this planet's population. Telling everyone to have a plug-in is akin to telling everyone to put in solar panels on their roof............optional for SFH in the NA/Australia and some of Europe, farcical for everyone else.

Why bother with using energy to make hydrogen when you could just produce hydrocarbon instead? One is easy to store and the entire worldwide economy is built for it, while the other is hard to store and has no infrastructure.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A Mirai has curb weight of 1850 kg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai

Which is pretty similar to the weight of a long range Tesla Model 3, which has a very similar range and costs less. Batteries are worse than fuel cells? Evidently not.

Not to mention that they are currently developing new battery technologies that can charge to nearly full in only 20 minutes. At that charging rate and with the range of these new battery electric cars, chargers could be placed at existing gas stations to make use of existing infrastructure, and home charging wouldn't be required. Hydrogen is a pipe dream.

[ssiguy]

Refuel in just 20 minutes...........and I thought the line-up for gas during the 1970s oil embargo was bad. When you are sitting at the gas station for an hour waiting to recharge your car, let me know how much you are enjoying your new EV.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Refuel in just 20 minutes...........and I thought the line-up for gas during the 1970s oil embargo was bad. When you are sitting at the gas station for an hour waiting to recharge your car, let me know how much you are enjoying your new EV.

I don’t think EVs are yet ready for the mainstream because of cost, range and limited fast charging facilities, but I find it hard to imagine there would ever be a time more convenient to find a hydrogen station than charging an EV, which can theoretically be done while you are stopped anyway (to eat, sleep, work, shop, etc.).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Refuel in just 20 minutes...........and I thought the line-up for gas during the 1970s oil embargo was bad. When you are sitting at the gas station for an hour waiting to recharge your car, let me know how much you are enjoying your new EV.

Your thinking is backwards. EVs start full at your home every day, you plug in when you're at home (and set it to charge when electricity is cheap). Zero time spent "refueling".

Fast charging is for road trips, where you stop for ~20 mins every 4 hours, or a bit longer if you want to stretch your full mileage and take more time to charge. Totally acceptable IMO.

[drew]

^ depends on how big a line up there happens to be at the "fast charging" places.

I was talking to a Electrical Engineer colleague (who owns a Tesla), and apparently the quick charge stations require some pretty pricey equipment to supply the chargers with DC. It will also impact electrical service itself as more than a few of these quick charging stations increase the power supply required to the building substantially.

I think the reality of a point to point EV road trip is more than a few years down the road. It will be like road tripping with my VW Westfalia. It's a thirsty vehicle with a small tank. It has a theoretical 400km range - but I stop and fill it up every 200 to 300 km when we travel. Its fine when you want to take things slow, or if you have little kids - but not so much if you want to actually just get somewhere.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But don't you have kids yourself? (Unless I am mistaken...)

I do have 2 children (am also a vegetarian). Doesn't change this fact though:

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.
Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ling-you-about

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

You have it backwards.

Have kids and you get to divide your household emissions more ways for a lower individual footprint, plus your per-person fuel consumption/emissions are lower with 4 people in a mid-size SUV are lower than 2 people in a sub-compact!

Ikea has the parents of small children parking is right next to the electric car parking for a reason.

And you have it wrong:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ling-you-about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.
Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

[Mikemike]

Or murder.

Preferably large numbers of young, rich people who have long years of heavy emissions in front of them.


Or maybe accounting that attributes other people's emissions to you is bullshit.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

Making one's life an absolute hell is one way to reduce emissions. But why be miserable when one can just slip a noose around one's neck? Think of the carbon reduction, especially because of no more exhalling!

Seriously, ignore the climate change bullshit and enjoy the time you have on earth. Really.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by drew

^ depends on how big a line up there happens to be at the "fast charging" places.

I was talking to a Electrical Engineer colleague (who owns a Tesla), and apparently the quick charge stations require some pretty pricey equipment to supply the chargers with DC. It will also impact electrical service itself as more than a few of these quick charging stations increase the power supply required to the building substantially.

I think the reality of a point to point EV road trip is more than a few years down the road. It will be like road tripping with my VW Westfalia. It's a thirsty vehicle with a small tank. It has a theoretical 400km range - but I stop and fill it up every 200 to 300 km when we travel. Its fine when you want to take things slow, or if you have little kids - but not so much if you want to actually just get somewhere.

I have a Tesla and I've road tripped with it. Yes, the infrastructure is expensive. Gas stations aren't cheap either.

If you want to just "get" somewhere, you can fly. Sure, an EV road trip will be slower if you are driving 24/7 and taking shifts with one or more other people to stay on the road all the time, but the time difference will be minimal, and I'd argue your example is an edge case at best.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Your thinking is backwards. EVs start full at your home every day, you plug in when you're at home (and set it to charge when electricity is cheap). Zero time spent "refueling".

Fast charging is for road trips, where you stop for ~20 mins every 4 hours, or a bit longer if you want to stretch your full mileage and take more time to charge. Totally acceptable IMO.

You are thinking like a North American again which does not, in any way shape or form, reflect the reality of 90% of the world's population. Relatively few people enjoy the benefit of living in a SFH or even a row/townhome. The vast majority of people on this planet will never live in anything but an apartment so plugging in your car is not optional.

Increasingly a larger portion of auto sales will be in the developing world and that trend will continue and automakers have to build cars that reflect that new reality.

[Mikemike]

Apartments have parking spaces. Most condos have deeded parking, and most apartments have assigned parking spaces, even in other continents. Here in Canada all the outdoor spaces already have block heater outlets, and while parking electric vehicles outdoors in Canada won’t work outside of the lower mainland the infrastructure for slow-charging in heated parkades is no more difficult.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Making one's life an absolute hell is one way to reduce emissions. But why be miserable when one can just slip a noose around one's neck? Think of the carbon reduction, especially because of no more exhalling!

Seriously, ignore the climate change bullshit and enjoy the time you have on earth. Really.

I am not advocating anything. I believe in live and let live. Just sharing what sciencemag.org had to say about the carbon footprint of having children. Take it for what it's worth.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

You are thinking like a North American again which does not, in any way shape or form, reflect the reality of 90% of the world's population. Relatively few people enjoy the benefit of living in a SFH or even a row/townhome. The vast majority of people on this planet will never live in anything but an apartment so plugging in your car is not optional.

Increasingly a larger portion of auto sales will be in the developing world and that trend will continue and automakers have to build cars that reflect that new reality.

That might be true in places where people store their cars on the street (Italy, for example) but in places where people park in fixed locations those can be electrified easier than building a hydrogen network.

In poor countries I don’t think there will be any significant switch to either technology.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

You are thinking like a North American again which does not, in any way shape or form, reflect the reality of 90% of the world's population. Relatively few people enjoy the benefit of living in a SFH or even a row/townhome. The vast majority of people on this planet will never live in anything but an apartment so plugging in your car is not optional.

Increasingly a larger portion of auto sales will be in the developing world and that trend will continue and automakers have to build cars that reflect that new reality.

Most people in Europe live lives pretty similar to a North American. They're not aliens, and that will go for much of the developing world too.