Tesla Roadster now being delivered.

[mykalberta]

I think its completely viable in Canada. Its like any other sports car, if you have enough money for it then you have enough to park it in the winter and drive something else.

This isnt a Ford Taurus nor is it claiming to be so.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

While I don't think there is a conspiracy by car manufacturers to block alternate fuel, I do think they are slow in changing the way they want to do business. Upstarts like this may compel them to hasten their own programs.

The car companies aren't blocking the alternate fuel on a whim. They are blocking the electrics because of the severe reduction in parts that they can sell as a result. A typical gas car has a lot more parts that need replacing, and as a result the car manufacturer makes a lot more money servicing and replacing said parts.

Its a sad state of affairs really...the car companies make too much money off the carbon vehicles to want to change.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think its hilarious that you mention logistical and infrastructure problems, then reccomend Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the one source that requires the most infrastructure and logistics change - Far more than simply electric vehicles.

To recharge a battery, you are looking at a 3 hour wait. To re-fill a hydrogen cell, you are looking at a few minutes.

Gas stations could be converted to hydrogen refueling stations. This would take a very long time yes, but it would be an easier than converting to electrical charging stations. Plus you would require less of them. Unless you limit people to charging for a few minutes and send them on their way. Otherwise you could be looking at very long waits to recharge your vehicle if you are stuck.

Also, with electric vehicles, one could argue that every public / public stall should have an electrical outlet, so that people do not get stuck.

Who then pays for the extra power usage? The business, the vehicle owner? Either way, it would require a lot more meters to track the electrical usage.

I am sure there is a market for both types of vehicles. I just think that hydrogen is the fuel that will eventually replace fossil fuel powered vehicles in the long run.
I could see electric cars being used a commuters only in an urban setting only. This could change of course if battery and charging technology gets a lot better.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So you are draining the battery to keep the battery warm correct?
What if you work at a building that does not have heated underground parking?

Electric cars are wonderful. I just see are too many logistical, infrastructure problems with them. Hydrogen is a much better solution.

Really, you think that it'll be easier to build an entire new delivery and distribution network for Hydrogen than to expand some electrical infrastructure?

And don't get me started on why Hydrogen is NOT a good idea for cars.
Hydrogen is an engergy CARRIER, NOT an energy source, at least not here on Earth.

[Slava]

^ Well the Tesla is a sports car. I have heard that they are planning on adding a sedan to the line-up, and I assume that because the focus here is not on speed and performance that the battery usage will be a little better.

In any event, even if a vehicle can only go 100km's on a charge (a mere 60 miles) how often do you need to drive more than that? How often do you need to drive more than that without a chance to stop and re-charge? These vehicles might not be the pure solution, but for the vast amount of drivers and for the large amount of time they are an excellent option.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Really, you think that it'll be easier to build an entire new delivery and distribution network for Hydrogen than to expand some electrical infrastructure?

You don't think expanding the electrical infrastructure would be a huge deal? It would require a lot more generation, than what is currently available at least in alberta. Where are you going to get the extra electric generation from?

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And don't get me started on why Hydrogen is NOT a good idea for cars.
Hydrogen is an engergy CARRIER, NOT an energy source, at least not here on Earth.

Electricity is also an energy carrier, not a source. What's your point? By that argument, electricity is not a good idea for cars either.

Also, i changed my statement to:
i could see electrical cars being a viable option in an urban setting only. Where you don't drive more than 100 - 200 km in a day. For those of us in north america or people you who like to go on road trips, etc, i just personally think that hydrogen will be a better option in the long run. Unless battery and charging technology gets a lot better. Right now electric vehicles are ahead of hydrogen power vehicles, in both distance and energy capacity. I just personally think that hydrogen has more room to grow, and will grow faster and out pace electrical vehicles in the long run.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by arsenal

You don't think expanding the electrical infrastructure would be a huge deal? It would require a lot more generation, than what is currently available at least in alberta. Where are you going to get the extra electric generation from?


Electricity is also an energy carrier, not a source.

The base of electrical infrastructure is already in place expanding that capacity would be much simpler than building an new hydrongen infrastructure from scratch.

My point about hydrogen being a Carrier and not a source is that too may people assume that hydrogen is going to be so much better for the environment than fossil fuels. But where do we get the hydrgen from? It's got to be produced from something, be it from hydrocarbons or from water, but either way we are using fuels and emmiting carbon to do this and all we are doing is adding additional steps and inefficiencies to the process. Using a battery is the same concept, but instead of using electricty to produce hydrogen and then transporting that hydrogen to the car you use that electricty to charge a battery directly in the car without having to physically transport any fuel. You tell me which is more efficient?

Yes we could build green methods of producing that hydrogen such as nuclear, but that adds a whole other level of complexity to the infrastructure that we've got to build.

[You Need a Thneed]

To add to what BBS has said, hydrogen (depending on the technology) requires fuel up stations, electric cars can be plugged into any outlet, anywhere. Hydrogen would require 1000's of gas stations to add Hydrogen, no small task, when it would mostly go unused until such time as a higher percentage of cars were using it.

Hydrogen vehicles also don't go very far between refuelling, and don't have as much room for improvement in that regard as electric vehicles do. You can only store so much Hydrogen in one small vehicle safely - without that vehicle becoming a bomb driving down the freeway. Safety is very important when using hydrogen fuel tanks, as the gas must be compressed, and even otherwise is significantly more explosive than gasoline.

Like BBS says, Hydrogen in its pure form isn't very abundant on this planet, and the only way to produce large quanitities of it seems to be to use LARGE amounts of power. So, a mass conversion to either technology would require significant power generation expansions.

The Tesla can go 300-400 km before recharging, how often do we drive that far without stopping somewhere for 3.5 hours? Reimbursment for using someone else's power is a problem, but one that's fairly easily solved, as charging the batteries would only use about 2 dollars of electricity. Most people wouldn't have a problem with giving someone 2 bucks worth of electricity once in a while, knowing that someone will do the same for them.

No, current electric cars won't be capable of long distance trips, but in the coming years, this will improve. Plus, vehicles like the Chevy Volt could cover people who need to drive long distances.

Or, you could tow a trailer with a generator behind your electric car. That'd be my choice. Can't you see me in my Tesla, towing a trailer, with a generator strapped on, and electrical cords sticking out everywhere?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The base of electrical infrastructure is already in place expanding that capacity would be much simpler than building an new hydrongen infrastructure from scratch.

Yes, the base is there already. But theoretically, the base infrastructure for hydrogen fueling stations is there as well. Just convert current gas stations. And no, i am not saying this is cheap or an easy process. But neither is building transmission lines, generation etc needed for electric vehicles either.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

My point about hydrogen being a Carrier and not a source is that too may people assume that hydrogen is going to be so much better for the environment than fossil fuels. But where do we get the hydrgen from? It's got to be produced from something, be it from hydrocarbons or from water, but either way we are using fuels and emmiting carbon to do this and all we are doing is adding additional steps and inefficiencies to the process. Using a battery is the same concept, but instead of using electricty to produce hydrogen and then transporting that hydrogen to the car you use that electricty to charge a battery directly in the car without having to physically transport any fuel. You tell me which is more efficient

Electricity has to be produced from something as well. Yes, electricity -> battery -> mechanical is more efficient that the hydrogen process. And yes, battery / electrical powered vehicles are great for the environment. What they aren't good at, is traveling long distances. Hydrogen isn't good at the long distance thing either, yet. But even if you can't drive longer than 300km on a hydrogen fill, you would be able to re-fuel your hydrogen vehicle in a matter of minutes. Instead of waiting for hours it takes to recharge your battery.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yes we could build green methods of producing that hydrogen such as nuclear, but that adds a whole other level of complexity to the infrastructure that we've got to build.

You would need the same nuclear power plants for the electrical vehicles as well.

Each technology has it's pros and cons. And again, I could see both having a place in our society in the future. Just for long trips, transport vehicles, buses, etc, I still think hydrogen is the better choice.

[octothorp]

The idea discussed in the article of treating batteries like exchangeable propane tanks is an interesting idea. Imagine if Shell, for example, has their own brand of batteries for all the major models of electric cars: you pull into a station, pop the hood, drop off your empty batteries, put in the new ones, pay, and hit the road again. Probably takes less time than fuelling up, if cars are built with this process in mind. You don't own the batteries, Shell does, you just pay for the energy Shell loads onto them, and when you have time, you can plug the car in and refill them yourself.
From the station's perspective, they're charging you for the power loaded on the battery, and maybe a small fee for swapping out the batteries. They charge up the batteries and put them in their supply to resell to the next person. The stations make their profit from a handling fee which is small from the consumer's perspective, but potentially offers a greater profit-margin to the retailer than gasoline sales.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The idea discussed in the article of treating batteries like exchangeable propane tanks is an interesting idea. Imagine if Shell, for example, has their own brand of batteries for all the major models of electric cars: you pull into a station, pop the hood, drop off your empty batteries, put in the new ones, pay, and hit the road again. Probably takes less time than fuelling up, if cars are built with this process in mind. You don't own the batteries, Shell does, you just pay for the energy Shell loads onto them, and when you have time, you can plug the car in and refill them yourself.
From the station's perspective, they're charging you for the power loaded on the battery, and maybe a small fee for swapping out the batteries. They charge up the batteries and put them in their supply to resell to the next person. The stations make their profit from a handling fee which is small from the consumer's perspective, but potentially offers a greater profit-margin to the retailer than gasoline sales.

That's one of the reasons why I think hydrogen is a better solution. How many batteries is a service station going to need to store to meet demand? How much extra space are they going to need to store those batteries?
Only time will tell.

But going with that thought, as battery technology improves, you theoretically could get an upgrade to your vehicle from a pure battery swap. Longer lasting, faster charging, more power etc.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The idea discussed in the article of treating batteries like exchangeable propane tanks is an interesting idea. Imagine if Shell, for example, has their own brand of batteries for all the major models of electric cars: you pull into a station, pop the hood, drop off your empty batteries, put in the new ones, pay, and hit the road again. Probably takes less time than fuelling up, if cars are built with this process in mind. You don't own the batteries, Shell does, you just pay for the energy Shell loads onto them, and when you have time, you can plug the car in and refill them yourself.
From the station's perspective, they're charging you for the power loaded on the battery, and maybe a small fee for swapping out the batteries. They charge up the batteries and put them in their supply to resell to the next person. The stations make their profit from a handling fee which is small from the consumer's perspective, but potentially offers a greater profit-margin to the retailer than gasoline sales.

Battery technology still needs to improve greatly for this to work, but once that happens, it definately would be possible. Right now, the battery size to have enough power to travel several hundred kilometers is fairly large, and thus, the batteries tend to be squeezed in wherever they can be fit in, plus tend to be in more inaccessible places where they aren't in the way. Plus they are heavy, and bulky. Right now, even if the batteries were put in accessible places, you'd pretty much need a forklift (or something like an engine lift) to change out the batteries.

Not too mention the space required at stations to store the batteries that were charging.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

To add to what BBS has said, hydrogen (depending on the technology) requires fuel up stations, electric cars can be plugged into any outlet, anywhere. Hydrogen would require 1000's of gas stations to add Hydrogen, no small task, when it would mostly go unused until such time as a higher percentage of cars were using it.

And you still need thousands of outlets to plug electric cars into.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Hydrogen vehicles also don't go very far between refuelling, and don't have as much room for improvement in that regard as electric vehicles do. You can only store so much Hydrogen in one small vehicle safely - without that vehicle becoming a bomb driving down the freeway. Safety is very important when using hydrogen fuel tanks, as the gas must be compressed, and even otherwise is significantly more explosive than gasoline.

You don't think that hydrogen technology can improve? It is still pretty much in its infancy compared to electric and battery technology.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

No, current electric cars won't be capable of long distance trips, but in the coming years, this will improve. Plus, vehicles like the Chevy Volt could cover people who need to drive long distances.

So will hydrogen technology.

Both you and BBS have valid points. In near future, we probably will have a large abundance of fossil, electric and hydrogen powered vehicles on our roads. From there, the market will dictate which of the technologies will replace fossil fuels.
In the end, it probably will be a combination of electric and hydrogen.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by arsenal

And you still need thousands of outlets to plug electric cars into.

Millions of outlets already exist.

Originally Posted by arsenal

You don't think that hydrogen technology can improve? It is still pretty much in its infancy compared to electric and battery technology.

The problem, like I said, is storing enough Hydrogen to travel longer distances in a tank safe enough to use in passenger sized vehicles, yet cheap enough to be practical. Battery technology has improved greatly in the last ten years. Storing Hydrogen hasn't, AFAIK. Materials that are cheap enough to use aren't strong enough to contain the H2 gas (and be strong enough to withstand 99% of collisions).

Originally Posted by arsenal

So will hydrogen technology.

Yes, theoretically, provided that stations around the continent start providing it.

Vehicles like the Chevy Volt can run with the current refuelling infrastructure.

It isn't just a matter of stations "converting" to Hydrogen gas either. Gas stations would have to build large pressure storage vessels, build large electrolysis machines, and the hardest thing might be to build new underground electricity supply to provide enough power for the gas stations to create the Hydrogen power they need.

Many (most?) service stations simply wouldn't have enough room on their site to build the required infrastructure. Not to mention the cost of building that infrasturcture, which would have little to no usage for quite a few years, until Hydrogen powered vehicles became much more popular.

It's a vicious cycle that would have to be broken for Hydrogen cars to catch on - people don't buy hydrogen cars because there's no where to refuel them, there's no where to refuel them because no one buys them. The challenge of breaking this cycle is why I can't see hydrogen vehicles ever becoming popular, especially as other types of alternative fuel vehicles don't have the same issues.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by arsenal

...Yes, electricity -> battery -> mechanical is more efficient that the hydrogen process. And yes, battery / electrical powered vehicles are great for the environment. What they aren't good at, is traveling long distances. Hydrogen isn't good at the long distance thing either, yet. But even if you can't drive longer than 300km on a hydrogen fill, you would be able to re-fuel your hydrogen vehicle in a matter of minutes. Instead of waiting for hours it takes to recharge your battery...

So basically, this part of your argument is that while hydrogen provides no perceivable benefit over electricity at this point in time, it will in the future because huydrogen technology will improve. You seem to be assuming that battery technology is tapped out, and that is simply not the case. Battery-powered electric vehicles travel significantly farther now than they did 20 and even 10 years ago. The fervour with which this type of technology is being pursues suggests that there is ample room to improve this even more.

Originally Posted by arsenal

That's one of the reasons why I think hydrogen is a better solution. How many batteries is a service station going to need to store to meet demand? How much extra space are they going to need to store those batteries?

I don't think that this is that big a problem. If it gets to that, a service station merely needs to calculate how many batteries it can distribute in the alloted 3.5 hour recharging period. how many patrons does an average refueling station service each hour? I doubt it would be anywhere near 100 as a mean number. If that were the case, how much space would be needed to store/charge 300–400 batteries? Is it really so excessive that this would cause problems for roadside service stations? I doubt it.

[BlackArcher101]

Anyone else concerned about the load charging cars will put on an already strained distribution system? We already have brownouts at some times, with warnings to limit use of appliances. It's even worse in the southern states. How can the systems take this extra load of charging large battery systems unless we expand production? Seems to be another factor limiting the adoption.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So basically, this part of your argument is that while hydrogen provides no perceivable benefit over electricity at this point in time, it will in the future because huydrogen technology will improve. You seem to be assuming that battery technology is tapped out, and that is simply not the case. Battery-powered electric vehicles travel significantly farther now than they did 20 and even 10 years ago. The fervour with which this type of technology is being pursues suggests that there is ample room to improve this even more.

No, I didn't say that battery power or technology is tapped out. This will be improved upon, and smaller, longer lasting, quicker charging batteries will be produced. I just personally think that hydrogen technology could outpace battery technology.
The Honda FCX travels about 280 miles on a charge. The Tesla travels about 220 miles.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think that this is that big a problem. If it gets to that, a service station merely needs to calculate how many batteries it can distribute in the alloted 3.5 hour recharging period. how many patrons does an average refueling station service each hour? I doubt it would be anywhere near 100 as a mean number. If that were the case, how much space would be needed to store/charge 300–400 batteries? Is it really so excessive that this would cause problems for roadside service stations? I doubt it.

Current world: gas tanks are currently stored underground. So you could remove the storage tanks, and put the batteries down there. Keeping the same area foot print. So that would solve that problem.
With hydrogen, it is likely that most companies would use a similar solution. Replacing the gas storage tanks, with hydrogen tanks. But because hydrogen is a gas, you can store more hydrogen in the same space as would be needed to store the batteries.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by arsenal

No, I didn't say that battery power or technology is tapped out. This will be improved upon, and smaller, longer lasting, quicker charging batteries will be produced. I just personally think that hydrogen technology could outpace battery technology.
The Honda FCX travels about 280 miles on a charge. The Tesla travels about 220 miles.



Current world: gas tanks are currently stored underground. So you could remove the storage tanks, and put the batteries down there. Keeping the same area foot print. So that would solve that problem.
With hydrogen, it is likely that most companies would use a similar solution. Replacing the gas storage tanks, with hydrogen tanks. But because hydrogen is a gas, you can store more hydrogen in the same space as would be needed to store the batteries.

How do you figure that? Being a gas has nothing to do with it.
It's all about energy density. Hydrogen's is fixed, it aint' changing any time soon.
Batteries on the other hand are improving and though they may not be able to transport as much energy as an equivalent volume of hydrogen right now, there is room to improve and the possibility that they will pass hydrogen.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

How do you figure that? Being a gas has nothing to do with it.
It's all about energy density. Hydrogen's is fixed, it aint' changing any time soon.
Batteries on the other hand are improving and though they may not be able to transport as much energy as an equivalent volume of hydrogen right now, there is room to improve and the possibility that they will pass hydrogen.

For the same reason that battery cells will improve, the fuel cell technology that convert the hydrogen will improve as well.

Also, another thing to consider, where do all the old batteries go? The same thing has to be considered for hydrogen fuel cells, but there could potentially be many more old batteries to deal with from battery powered cars, than from hydrogen powered cars.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by arsenal

For the same reason that battery cells will improve, the fuel cell technology that convert the hydrogen will improve as well.

Also, another thing to consider, where do all the old batteries go? The same thing has to be considered for hydrogen fuel cells, but there could potentially be many more old batteries to deal with from battery powered cars, than from hydrogen powered cars.

Okay, that's super, but that doesn't change how much hydrogen a station can store. Granted this isn't anything that will ultimately decide the fate of either technology, but the ammount of hydrogen (and the energy it carries) you can store in a given volume will never change, batteries are constantly improving how much power they can pack into a smaller and smaller volume.