Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Finally, the first mass-produced hydrogen-using car. And considering that its only exhaust is water vapor, expect the LA City Council to ban it in three... two... one   (popsci.com) divider line 96
    More: Cool, Los Angeles City Council, hydrogen, water vapors, hydrogen car, battery power, alternate energy, hydrogen fuel, fuel cells  
•       •       •

2975 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Mar 2014 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 09:56:26 AM  
I'd lease one if the closest Hydrogen Station were a tad more convenient.
 
2014-03-05 10:19:04 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: I'd lease one if the closest Hydrogen Station were a tad more convenient.


$500/month seems expensive until you get to this part: Local drivers will be able to "gas" up for free at any of seven distribution stations. Yeah, I like the terms of that deal... I'd do it. I wonder what maintenance costs are like, and how much would be covered by warranty?
 
2014-03-05 10:21:57 AM  
This is cool ... but I think most people are aware that even though the vehicle's only emission is water vapor it's not without environmental impact. It takes electric power to generate H2, and power generation has its own emissions and wastes
 
2014-03-05 10:27:21 AM  
What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.
 
2014-03-05 10:33:13 AM  

phaseolus: This is cool ... but I think most people are aware that even though the vehicle's only emission is water vapor it's not without environmental impact. It takes electric power to generate H2, and power generation has its own emissions and wastes


Wind and solar and the pumps and tanks to keep the cracked-out H2 have the environmental impact of manufacturing. After that, it's mostly crimping and replacing brushes, etc.

/I run a boat on wind and solar.
 
2014-03-05 10:34:40 AM  

Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.


OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.
 
2014-03-05 10:39:48 AM  

Valiente: phaseolus: This is cool ... but I think most people are aware that even though the vehicle's only emission is water vapor it's not without environmental impact. It takes electric power to generate H2, and power generation has its own emissions and wastes

Wind and solar and the pumps and tanks to keep the cracked-out H2 have the environmental impact of manufacturing. After that, it's mostly crimping and replacing brushes, etc.

/I run a boat on wind and solar.



Ah, I hadn't thought of that...
 
2014-03-05 10:42:05 AM  

Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.


It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.
 
2014-03-05 10:46:16 AM  

Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.


Energy density of hydrogen fuel cells is higher than batteries can theoretically achieve (barring major advancements). The trick is the loss of power in the conversion.
 
2014-03-05 10:49:01 AM  

Psylence: This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.


Yep.  The biggest complaint against EVs is range... Tesla has a 250 mile + range.  Need to go further?  The supercharger network is rapidly rolling out, enabling 200 miles of charge in 45 minutes or so... enough time to stop and have have lunch.

Best part... full tank every morning.  In my area it costs 2-3 cents per mile to run a Model S, or the eMPG equivalent of 100mpg when compared to the cost of gas in a comparable sized vehicle.

We'll keep at least one ICE car or SUV into the foreseeable future (at least until the supercharger network is fully operational), but I'm not going back as far as my primary car.  Too many advantages of EV technology.
 
2014-03-05 10:50:09 AM  
So if everyone in CA drives cars that emit water vapor, will that help induce more rain?
 
2014-03-05 10:51:39 AM  

Psylence: Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.

It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.


What hydrogen distribution? Why not grow it in situ?

http://phys.org/news114172068.html
 
2014-03-05 10:52:04 AM  

Psylence: Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.

It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.


Maybe you want to travel more than (max single charge distance) and you don't want your route to be tethered to the fast charging stations? Maybe it's a cold environment and the battery suffers?

Not to mention cost - hydrogen fuel cells are generally significantly cheaper than batteries.
 
2014-03-05 10:53:39 AM  
They say it's the first mass produced hydrogen car in the USA, but it's only available for lease at a couple California dealerships . . .

Isn't that exactly what Honda did with their "Clarity" hydrogen car? If I recall correctly, the only reason you couldn't buy it (lease only) was because the manufacturing cost of the car was somewhere in the 1/4 million range.

People complain about electric cars costing too much, even though you can buy a decent model for $16k-$21k, or lease for $199 a month. Yet they go gaga over a car that isn't available for purchase and the lease is 2 1/2 times that, and it's only sold at 7 dealerships.
 
2014-03-05 10:54:11 AM  
The auto / oil industry is scared to death of Tesla.  Elimination of the dealership model.  No dependence on oil companies for operation.  Customers can make their own fuel (solar and wind).  Very few moving parts minimize maintenance.  No oil changes.  Supercharging for free (well, I guess you're paying for it when you purchase the car, but you know what I mean).  Dirt cheap recharging rates at home.  No stops for gas (and impulse buys).  Better air quality which benefits everyone.

Elon Musk is going to prove the be the 21st centuries greatest and most disruptive business person.  His accomplishments are going to mirror those of Henry Ford... likely even greater if their march into power distribution / grid / storage is successful.  Not to mention Space X and its disruption to Boeing's space launch industry.
 
2014-03-05 10:55:25 AM  
People that get depressed and leave their car running in the garage will get moist.
 
2014-03-05 10:55:30 AM  

Psylence: Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.

It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.


Seeing as you could make fuel at home with a solar panel and tap water, I would have to disagree.
 
2014-03-05 11:01:13 AM  
LA City Council to ban it in three... two... one

Of course they'll ban it, have you seen what happens to hydrogen vehicles?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-05 11:01:44 AM  
Did any of you Telsa fanboys read the refuel time for this?  Sure the infrastructure isn't there yet, but same could have been said about the supercharger stations not long ago and even with the supercharger the refuel time is 4 times longer.  Unless there is some major battery tech breakthrough, hydrogen is valid competition.  Both are nothing more than chemical energy storage.
 
2014-03-05 11:02:04 AM  

Exception Collection: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

Energy density of hydrogen fuel cells is higher than batteries can theoretically achieve (barring major advancements). The trick is the loss of power in the conversion.


+ hydrogen is storable. Lithium batteries have a limited lifetime, fuel cells work with a catalyst. They'll work notable longer if you're doing it right.
 
2014-03-05 11:05:50 AM  

AngryDragon: Psylence: Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.

It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.

Seeing as you could make fuel at home with a solar panel and tap water, I would have to disagree.


Seeing as how that's massively inefficient and slow, and solar on my house can already charge electrics..
Look if they were serious they would have been investing in infrastructure as well. They aren't. They want the dumbass customer to build it for them.

Tesla is doing it right, these guys are dinosaurs and so are their ideas.
 
2014-03-05 11:08:22 AM  

AngryDragon: Seeing as you could make fuel at home with a solar panel and tap water, I would have to disagree




Please direct me to an at-home hydrogen cracking refueling station. I'm curious about the energy requirement, size, maintenance schedule, purchase cost and installation cost.

Because I already have a 110v outlet in my garage that cost almost nothing to install and charges my EV to full every night for about $1.50 a day.
 
2014-03-05 11:11:17 AM  

getsoutalive: Unless there is some major battery tech breakthrough, hydrogen is valid competition.  Both are nothing more than chemical energy storage.


I agree, Hydrogen is a valid competition.  The cost of build out is going to be very high... questionable if it is worth it.  Electricity infrastructure build out is easy and comparably cheap, and already available worldwide.

In CA the hydrogen stations are being paid for by the state... do you see this happening in any other areas?  If it is going to succeed, it needs to be privately funded (ie make business sense)... so far Tesla has been able to build their supercharger network without government funds.
 
2014-03-05 11:17:10 AM  

Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.


This opens the door to a flexible car design. Think of tri-hybrid vehicles that can be plugged in, use hydrogen or even gas when needed.
 
2014-03-05 11:18:09 AM  

Psylence: This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.


Peep this...

Let's say they put in the fast charge system and the Hydrogen system side by side at most major gas stations...

My yearly trip to PHX is about 600 miles. This takes 10 minutes to refuel and has a 300 mile range. 2 tanks, 20 minutes of refueling.

Tesla has a 200 mile range, 45 minutre charge on the fast charging network, so I have 3 charges at 45 minutes each. Or 3 over night charges.

You're right, a Tesla is SO much more perfectly suited for absolutely EVERY situation at hand, we should all own 3 of them.
 
2014-03-05 11:18:53 AM  

wxboy: So if everyone in CA drives cars that emit water vapor, will that help induce more rain?


I saw an equation one time that showed less H2O per mile than your average gas-powered vehicle.  Can't seem to find it now.
 
2014-03-05 11:19:54 AM  
Oh, sure, water vapor is perfectly harmless.  Let's give everyone hydrogen cars and *fill* the atmosphere with water vapor.  Know what will happen then?  GLOBAL DROWNING!!!

Best thing to do is just go back to the horse and buggy.  Or bicycles.
 
2014-03-05 11:27:02 AM  

Mikey1969: Tr0mBoNe: I'd lease one if the closest Hydrogen Station were a tad more convenient.

$500/month seems expensive until you get to this part: Local drivers will be able to "gas" up for free at any of seven distribution stations. Yeah, I like the terms of that deal... I'd do it. I wonder what maintenance costs are like, and how much would be covered by warranty?


All maintenance cost are also covered, as well as collision insurance.
 
2014-03-05 11:28:53 AM  
Holy shiat, they made a car that has dihydrogen monoxide as a waste product? This is an outrage!
 
2014-03-05 11:34:43 AM  

Exception Collection: Psylence: Valiente: Psylence: What a farking stupid waste of money.

Lets use a fuel cell to power an ELECTRIC MOTOR....  because adding layers of complexity and expensive shiat to a device that could just use a BATTERY makes perfect sense.

This is just a stupid plan to try and keep the current auto infrastructure relevant. Any company trying to peddle this stupid shiat deserves to fail and have Tesla feast on their corpse.

OK, but let's not forget that contending systems will tend to prove themselves. I am open to all options that make sense. Co-generation or hybrids have a place.

It is completely farktarded to build up an entire new infrastructure to generate and distribute hydrogen for this. It is stupid, it is wasteful, and the money could be far more effectively used on other things.

Competetion is good, but this... this is a non-starter imo. Why the hell would I want all that complexity and hassle and OMG where is the hydrogen station. I can just plug an electric car in at home and I'm good to go. I don't have a pressure vessel onboard, I don't have complex and expensive to maintain bits and pieces that go along with that.

This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.

Maybe you want to travel more than (max single charge distance) and you don't want your route to be tethered to the fast charging stations? Maybe it's a cold environment and the battery suffers?

Not to mention cost - hydrogen fuel cells are generally significantly cheaper than batteries.


Lighter, too. Tesla couldn't produce anything with close to the range of an FCV for the same cost.  The Model S leases for $1,200 a month compared to the $499 Hyundai FCV.


In case people aren't keeping up with FCVs, here is the Hyundai Intrado concept (with 375-mile range) that was revealed yesterday in Geneva.  It has a CFRP frame, the likes of which BMW is already putting into mass production.

o.aolcdn.com

images.thecarconnection.com
 
2014-03-05 11:34:51 AM  
I can see a good market for both, but I think the hydrogen is the way to go long term, if only because of the lack of need for batteries. Seems like it's less environmentally damaging to build the car if not needed to make a boatload of batteries, although charging them would be cleaner as we progress. Hard to be clean about digging tons of junk from the ground.

Electrics are great for in-town or short range use, and if they get the supercharger network done, could be good overall. Admittedly, I'd rather have 1 vehicle that I can go anywhere with easily and less planning, and that says Hydrogen to me, but I live in the southwest, which is pretty rural, a 250 range on electric keeps me close to home. On the coasts I can see it being much more usable.
 
2014-03-05 11:36:04 AM  
It says that one of the fuel stations is at a waste water plant. I wonder if they're storing the hydrogen from their onsite hypochlorite generator? There are numerous (small) systems like this throughout the country. It seems like such a waste to vent it to the atmosphere.
 
2014-03-05 11:36:32 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Mikey1969: Tr0mBoNe: I'd lease one if the closest Hydrogen Station were a tad more convenient.

$500/month seems expensive until you get to this part: Local drivers will be able to "gas" up for free at any of seven distribution stations. Yeah, I like the terms of that deal... I'd do it. I wonder what maintenance costs are like, and how much would be covered by warranty?

All maintenance cost are also covered, as well as collision insurance.


Sounds like a damn fine plan. I don't normally like leases, you usually take it in the ass, unless you're a 'switch cars every 3 years' kind of person, but this actually sounds like a good one.

wxboy: So if everyone in CA drives cars that emit water vapor, will that help induce more rain?


Not in CA. Same reason that watering your lawn in a drought is a no-no... The water evaporates and travels elsewhere before it builds up enough to finally fall back to the earth. Maybe this would help Phx or Vegas, but it would travel out of SoCal for the most part,,, I bet.
 
2014-03-05 11:42:01 AM  

Mikey1969: Peep this...

Let's say they put in the fast charge system and the Hydrogen system side by side at most major gas stations...

My yearly trip to PHX is about 600 miles. This takes 10 minutes to refuel and has a 300 mile range. 2 tanks, 20 minutes of refueling.

Tesla has a 200 mile range, 45 minutre charge on the fast charging network, so I have 3 charges at 45 minutes each. Or 3 over night charges.

You're right, a Tesla is SO much more perfectly suited for absolutely EVERY situation at hand, we should all own 3 of them.


Or, you know, you could rent a car to make your once yearly trip and enjoy the convenience of electric for the other 51 weeks of the year.  Or you could fly.  Or you could use a ICE car and not worry about it.  Or you could wait 20+ years for the hydrogen infrastructure.  Or you could let the market sort it all out.  All are valid options.
 
2014-03-05 11:43:31 AM  

alywa: The auto / oil industry is scared to death of Tesla.  Elimination of the dealership model.  No dependence on oil companies for operation.  Customers can make their own fuel (solar and wind).  Very few moving parts minimize maintenance.  No oil changes.  Supercharging for free (well, I guess you're paying for it when you purchase the car, but you know what I mean).  Dirt cheap recharging rates at home.  No stops for gas (and impulse buys).


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ohwaityou'reserious.jpg

If they were THAT scared of Tesla they'd have bought them already. Fact of the matter is that any of the major automakers could make their own BEVs for less than Tesla charges. They're even doing it already. The only thing Tesla brings to the table is their BEVs are stylish and high performing as opposed to the econobox sort with the emphasis on efficiency being made by others.

The supercharger network is hardly the end of anything that isn't a Tesla or other BEV. Right now, if you aren't in one of the megalopolis areas (say, the NYC-DC corridor for example) you're out of luck if you want to take a long trip. Charging at a supercharger takes far longer than just fueling up a traditional vehicle or even filling a fuel cell vehicle with H2. A BEV can be a great car depending on your location and needs, but we're still WAY away from them being what kills every other technology out there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we're entering an era where there isn't just one form of propulsion for personal vehicles. We're coming out of a time when it's internal combustion or nothing. The new era will involve internal combustion, hybrid, extended range EV, fuel cell, BEV, and anything else that might meet your needs. What this fuel cell vehicle gives is the ability to refuel quickly and keep on going while also having zero carbon or smog inducing emissions. Sure a BEV is simpler, but range is still an extreme issue- even with a supercharger station, the extra half hour or so it takes to recharge the thing is time spent not making money (if in commercial duty) or getting where you need to be (if personal). When a BEV can give more range than a person can actually use in a full day (the threshold for that is going to be somewhere in the 600-800 mile range), then you'll see these fuel cell vehicles become unnecessary. But they're not even close to that yet.

The Tesla Model S gives you around 250 miles with the 85KWh battery pack... and it takes over a full hour for a full charge even at a supercharger. That ain't even close to what somebody is going to need if their needs require hundreds of miles per day. The day will come when a BEV will do what most people need. It's not here yet. It's what some people need and as technology improves it will be what more and more people need. But laughing off other technology now is just foolish.
 
2014-03-05 11:44:48 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Lighter, too. Tesla couldn't produce anything with close to the range of an FCV for the same cost.  The Model S leases for $1,200 a month compared to the $499 Hyundai FCV.


How much do you think that FCV really costs to manufacture?  Can you lease one in areas other than CA?  Would any manufacturer be pursuing this if it weren't for CA incentives and their (taxpayer funded) buildout of H2 stations?

The market will sort all of this out.  in the short term battery EVs will win... if a economically viable option for H2 infrastructure becomes feasible, you'll see both in the marketplace.
 
2014-03-05 11:48:40 AM  

spickus: It says that one of the fuel stations is at a waste water plant. I wonder if they're storing the hydrogen from their onsite hypochlorite generator? There are numerous (small) systems like this throughout the country. It seems like such a waste to vent it to the atmosphere.


The (demonstration-scale, not full size) hydrogen station in Orange County uses biogas from the wastewater as a feedstock for a stationary fuel cell that produces electricity, hydrogen, and heat.

A very similar device can be used in a residential scale for home CHP and hydrogen refueling, utilizing natural gas as a feedstock.  For the Tesla fanboys who are obsessed with efficiency, a residential fuel cell is cleaner and more efficient than the grid, so they should be thrilled.

csmres.co.uk
Commercial size stationary fuel cells are already gaining popularity in the US, especially with Power Purchase Agreements (you sell your excess power back to the utility) which drops the capital cost to almost nothing.  Indeed, Superstorm Sandy demonstrated the effectiveness of the devices as they kept vital communications equipment up and running when the grid failed.
 
2014-03-05 11:52:22 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: A very similar device can be used in a residential scale for home CHP


Cool stuff.
 
2014-03-05 11:52:26 AM  

akula: The Tesla Model S gives you around 250 miles with the 85KWh battery pack... and it takes over a full hour for a full charge even at a supercharger. That ain't even close to what somebody is going to need if their needs require hundreds of miles per day. The day will come when a BEV will do what most people need. It's not here yet. It's what some people need and as technology improves it will be what more and more people need. But laughing off other technology now is just foolish.


If you read my other posts, you'll see I'm not laughing off other technology.  I am pointing out that Tesla has a huge head start on other manufacturers in terms of technology, charging infrastructure, public interest, and vehicles on the road.  Perhaps GM / Ford / Benz could make a Model S competitor... why haven't they?  BMW's i8 is 50K more expensive than a Tesla, has shorter range (by far), uses a much more complex gas / battery propulsion scheme, and still can't outperform a P85 Model S.  Every other EV on the market (with exception of the Volt) is designed to be a short range, city car (75 miles if you're really careful about usage).

But you're right, this is the beginning of an era where we will have choices in propulsion.  There are many exciting possibilities out there.  I'm not of the belief that H2 is going to be a major player for many years to come, for reasons I've discussed above.
 
2014-03-05 11:56:17 AM  

alywa: The market will sort all of this out.  in the short term battery EVs will win... if a economically viable option for H2 infrastructure becomes feasible, you'll see both in the marketplace.


There I agree with you. Ultimately this is going to go with the market. I can see a more economically viable case for H2 than for electric superchargers... if ConocoPhillips, Mobil, or another oil company wanted they could VERY easily install H2 filling hardware at their stations. It wouldn't be that far from what they do now (unlike installing an electric supercharger). But it depends on there being enough fuel cell vehicles for that to be profitable. Good old chicken and egg. Just like with BEVs and supercharger stations.

I could easily see, if the fed.gov wanted to get serious about this, tax credits being given to install such hardware nationwide. At first, just off major highways in larger metro areas (you don't need a hundred stations in a metro area when a half dozen will do). That will encourage people to buy a fuel cell vehicle since the fueling infrastructure is there. Then that will spur further development. This could even apply to supercharger stations, but the long recharge times (an hour at the plug instead of 10 minutes at the nozzle like with gas or hydrogen) will work against that- you'd need more space to handle the same amount of users as well as something for them to do in a meantime (could put a supercharger station next to a mall, for example). There's ways to encourage something other than fossil fuels and they don't all mean death for oil companies. They could even be partners in helping roll out the answer to our reliance on gasoline and diesel fuel.
 
2014-03-05 12:01:38 PM  

alywa: Perhaps GM / Ford / Benz could make a Model S competitor... why haven't they?  BMW's i8 is 50K more expensive than a Tesla, has shorter range (by far), uses a much more complex gas / battery propulsion scheme, and still can't outperform a P85 Model S.  Every other EV on the market (with exception of the Volt) is designed to be a short range, city car (75 miles if you're really careful about usage).


Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that the major automakers just don't see a big enough market to bother right now. The moment they do you'll see it happen... Tesla right now is something of a boutique automaker who is able to make money not just from the manufacture of vehicles but also the sale of carbon credits (a major revenue spot for them- if that went away Tesla would likely fold). There's really nothing keeping Ford from making a 250 mile range BEV out of the Taurus or Explorer other than their own desire. IMO, if they saw Tesla as a major threat, they'd be doing exactly that.

To tell the truth, I'm surprised Tesla hasn't yet been bought by somebody like BMW or GM. I just get the feeling that Tesla isn't likely to keep going on its own for years on end; it's a ripe takeover target for an automaker... but then, they may have decided to do it on their own when they want to bother.

I do think H2 can be a decent energy storage medium for vehicles- the no emissions (well, other than water) of BEVs while retaining the ability to refuel quickly (like internal combustion vehicles). Kind of a best of both worlds thing. The only thing we're missing is the H2 infrastructure... something that can easily be established (we already have it with current fuels, even propane). But BEVs, if improved well enough, could easily supplant them if that infrastructure doesn't come along.
 
2014-03-05 12:02:07 PM  

alywa: Mikey1969: Peep this...

Let's say they put in the fast charge system and the Hydrogen system side by side at most major gas stations...

My yearly trip to PHX is about 600 miles. This takes 10 minutes to refuel and has a 300 mile range. 2 tanks, 20 minutes of refueling.

Tesla has a 200 mile range, 45 minutre charge on the fast charging network, so I have 3 charges at 45 minutes each. Or 3 over night charges.

You're right, a Tesla is SO much more perfectly suited for absolutely EVERY situation at hand, we should all own 3 of them.

Or, you know, you could rent a car to make your once yearly trip and enjoy the convenience of electric for the other 51 weeks of the year.  Or you could fly.  Or you could use a ICE car and not worry about it.  Or you could wait 20+ years for the hydrogen infrastructure.  Or you could let the market sort it all out.  All are valid options.


You tried to fly a family of 5 anywhere? Rent a car? I might as well just own my own car. I was merely pointing out that this wasn't any less feasible than an all electric was at this point, since the OP had a hard on for Teslas like they were feasible for anything other than tooling around town.
 
2014-03-05 12:02:26 PM  

alywa: Psylence: This is a product in search of a market. A market that went out and bought a Tesla already.

Yep.  The biggest complaint against EVs is range... Tesla has a 250 mile + range.  Need to go further?  The supercharger network is rapidly rolling out, enabling 200 miles of charge in 45 minutes or so... enough time to stop and have have lunch.

Best part... full tank every morning.  In my area it costs 2-3 cents per mile to run a Model S, or the eMPG equivalent of 100mpg when compared to the cost of gas in a comparable sized vehicle.

We'll keep at least one ICE car or SUV into the foreseeable future (at least until the supercharger network is fully operational), but I'm not going back as far as my primary car.  Too many advantages of EV technology.


I would love to have an S as my daily driver. It's not a big drive, 45miles both ways, but that's money that can be spent on other stuff.
Plus they look beautiful. The X would be a great for the family if I could use it on trips to the mountains, but like you mention, the network needs to be in place first.
 
2014-03-05 12:07:41 PM  
I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain that where I went to college all taxis were hydrogen powered.  They were powered by something other than gas, that much I know.  So how is this new, because it is available to the public.  The tech existed back in the early 90's.  That's 20 years.  Why hasn't this caught on?  Buses where I live now are also hydrogen powered.
 
2014-03-05 12:08:33 PM  

alywa: Kraftwerk Orange: Lighter, too. Tesla couldn't produce anything with close to the range of an FCV for the same cost.  The Model S leases for $1,200 a month compared to the $499 Hyundai FCV.

How much do you think that FCV really costs to manufacture?  Can you lease one in areas other than CA?  Would any manufacturer be pursuing this if it weren't for CA incentives and their (taxpayer funded) buildout of H2 stations?

The market will sort all of this out.  in the short term battery EVs will win... if a economically viable option for H2 infrastructure becomes feasible, you'll see both in the marketplace.


I believe actual production costs are currently somewhere in the $100k range, based on numbers from Toyota's HFCV-adv.  No doubt, Hyundai will take a loss on these initial vehicles, but so did Toyota on the early Prius.  I don't think Tesla made profits on the Roadster, either...

We don't know where Hyundai will offer leases, but CA is certain, with NY metro being possible.  More importantly (considering the global nature of the biz), Hyundai has already delivered dozens to Europe, and who knows how many in their home market.  Korea, Japan, Germany, Scandinavia are all very important early markets that are already getting product.

Honda, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Mercedes, GM - they're all pursuing fuel cell vehicles.  It's rather strange to say the only reason they're building them is because of CA incentives, but, isn't that what the CA incentives were *supposed* to encourage them to do?  Tesla wouldn't exist either without those same incentives.

CA has pledged money for around 50 stations, to support early build out.  $100 million isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things, my small city (100k) is spending $140 million on a new concert hall.  Aside from that, hydrogen stations cost just a bit more than a standard gasoline station ($2-4million vs $1-3million) and yet somehow the gasoline refueling industry manages to provide remarkable coverage.  It shouldn't be that hard to provide a single hydrogen pump at a gas station, and slowly transition over as the FCV market grows (that's actually the plan, BTW).

It's not about BEVs "winning" anymore than it's about SUVs "winning" compared to sedans.  There's a room for both.  Hydrogen is a valid competitor to pure battery in terms of energy storage, and both are a part of the transition away from imported oil and fossil fuels in general.
 
2014-03-05 12:09:46 PM  

akula: To tell the truth, I'm surprised Tesla hasn't yet been bought by somebody like BMW or GM. I just get the feeling that Tesla isn't likely to keep going on its own for years on end; it's a ripe takeover target for an automaker... but then, they may have decided to do it on their own when they want to bother.


If time travel technology was possible, I think someone would have 1 year ago.  Problem is Tesla now has a market cap of 31 billion dollars (which is pretty damn silly), of which Musk owns 28%.  He has repeatedly stated the company is not for sale.  By comparison GM is worth 60 billion.  Ford is worth 61 billion.  Toyota is worth 180 billion... They could likely rig a hostile takeover, but at what cost both financially and publicly?

Thus far Tesla has done exactly what they said they would: Roadster as a small volume, high dollar product.  Model S as a high end sedan competitor.  Battery plant announced.  Model X being released late this year.  3rd gen slated (competing against a BMW 3 or Mercedes C) for 2017 or so.  They are projecting manufacturing volume of 500K by 2020.  I wouldn't bet against them.
 
2014-03-05 12:13:01 PM  

akula: To tell the truth, I'm surprised Tesla hasn't yet been bought by somebody like BMW or GM. I just get the feeling that Tesla isn't likely to keep going on its own for years on end; it's a ripe takeover target for an automaker... but then, they may have decided to do it on their own when they want to bother.


I don't think Musk has any plans to sell this thing out. He doesn't need the money.

What he wants is change.

My next car will be a Tesla. Hydrogen is not even going to be close to viable within 10 years. Honda has been trying to fob that shiat off on SoCal for year and have few takers. Yea, good luck driving cross country hitting up hydrogen stations. Ain't gonna farking happen. Seriously, Musk believes in his shiat enough to put up his own charging stations. I don't see anyone putting up hydrogen at their expense. They want you the consumer, or you the taxpayer to farking do it...

Battery tech also is NOT stagnant, and LOL200miles is just tired..
 
2014-03-05 12:15:56 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Tesla wouldn't exist either without those same incentives.


You're right (when it comes to emissions tax credits), but Tesla isn't asking anyone to build the Supercharger network.  Furthermore, their business model is taking into account when these credits go away (hence their goal of getting a cheaper gen 3 out).  A reasonable H2 network is going to be expensive.  Don't hold your breath for TX, AL, OK, etc to foot the bill.   If existing stations can add H2 filling technology, and it is profitable, then it is feasible option.  I'm not going to bet on it.
 
2014-03-05 12:18:58 PM  

alywa: If time travel technology was possible, I think someone would have 1 year ago. Problem is Tesla now has a market cap of 31 billion dollars (which is pretty damn silly), of which Musk owns 28%. He has repeatedly stated the company is not for sale. By comparison GM is worth 60 billion. Ford is worth 61 billion. Toyota is worth 180 billion... They could likely rig a hostile takeover, but at what cost both financially and publicly?


That's the thing - right now, no domestic manufacturer has enough capital to be able to stage a take over of Tesla.

At the current rate of market cap growth, Tesla could be the USA's largest (in terms of value) car maker in 6 months. Two or three years ago, that would have been laughed off as fantasy. Now it's probable.
 
2014-03-05 12:20:48 PM  

alywa: I wouldn't bet against them.


Oh, I wouldn't either. I just think that their road will get rather tougher when they start directly competing with traditional auto manufacturers. There's a few tricks that GM, Ford, Honda, BMW, and the rest know that Tesla likely has yet to learn. Automotive history is littered with the dead husks of failed companies that had some great ideas but couldn't pull it off in direct competition to the established makers. Even some that knew what they were doing but couldn't pull through a tough patch. If creating successful automakers was easy you'd see more doing it. Elon Musk has gone farther than I really expected him to, so no, I wouldn't bet against them. But they're trying to graduate to the big leagues in the near future and he can't afford any missteps.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report