Alternative Fuels Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

Loyalty is often helped by lucrative employee discounts. Certainly why I see plenty of Fords around here (Used to be Visteon in Swansea, but now only Bridgend engine plant).

I'm not just talking employees, I'm on about the region in general. People support Nissan because they keep jobs in the area. The region would be worse off as a whole if Nissan wasn't there, so many buy them whether they work there or not.

I expect Swindon is swarming with Hondas for the same reason.

 

[Jubby]

Hydrogen isn't an answer. It is just another way to store energy, and right now it would be generated by fossil fuels. And even if we did separate hydrogen from water, we'd need to get the electricity from somewhere. Finally, the internal combustion engine is, at MOST, less than 40% efficient. Realistically, more like 20%. Which means you'd be losing 80% or more of the energy invested just to get the hydrogen from the water. Not exactly efficient. Not to mention issues of storing it and transporting it.

In comparison, electric motors are already 90% efficient. Electricity is relatively easy to move around the country, and if we are using pure electric setups, it will reduce the number of steps where power is lost at.

But no, hydrogen isn't a remotely realistic answer.

That is completely incorrect. You're right in the fact that ICE won't work, it'll be electric engines. Look up the Honda FCX for one example among many. It's basically an electric hybrid that takes away gasoline and puts in compressed hydrogen in its place. It will be the answer for automobiles. It is not the answer overall for everything. I'm talking about one of the biggest drains on our pockets(gasoline). The car owner, down the road potentially, will be able to make their own compressed hydrogen fuel at their house for the cost of pumping water(any source), filtering, and electrolysis. If the cars are made properly and you have too much electricity left over in the batteries, you could feed it back to your house to fill up your car the next day, or whenever.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That is completely incorrect. You're right in the fact that ICE won't work, it'll be electric engines. Look up the Honda FCX for one example among many. It's basically an electric hybrid that takes away gasoline and puts in compressed hydrogen in its place. It will be the answer for automobiles. It is not the answer overall for everything. I'm talking about one of the biggest drains on our pockets(gasoline). The car owner, down the road potentially, will be able to make their own compressed hydrogen fuel at their house for the cost of pumping water(any source), filtering, and electrolysis. If the cars are made properly and you have too much electricity left over in the batteries, you could feed it back to your house to fill up your car the next day, or whenever.

Hydrogen is far from being the answer.

You don't seem to grasp how much electricity is required to produce Hydrogen. You want to produce hydrogen at home? That would kill the electricity grid, the demand and infrastructure just couldn't cope with it. There is a push for micro-generation in the UK and many other countries, but it's unsuitable at most locations.

Even on an industrial scale the UK alone would require almost 100 new nuclear power plants to power it!

Link: http://www.physorg.com/news1471.html

Bio-fuel range extending engines are far more likely, or just a general shift to public transport for long distance travel.

 

[homeforsummer]

That is completely incorrect. You're right in the fact that ICE won't work, it'll be electric engines. Look up the Honda FCX for one example among many. It's basically an electric hybrid that takes away gasoline and puts in compressed hydrogen in its place. It will be the answer for automobiles. It is not the answer overall for everything. I'm talking about one of the biggest drains on our pockets(gasoline). The car owner, down the road potentially, will be able to make their own compressed hydrogen fuel at their house for the cost of pumping water(any source), filtering, and electrolysis. If the cars are made properly and you have too much electricity left over in the batteries, you could feed it back to your house to fill up your car the next day, or whenever.

Hydrogen has more drawbacks than it does positives, unfortunately. We're more likely to have usable long-range batteries in the next 5, 10 years than we are usable, inexpensive hydrogen fuel cells.

Then there's the issue of the "refueling" network. Sticking a charging post somewhere as and when required costs a few hundred dollars. A hydrogen pump costs many, many thousands, and that's before you consider the cost of incorporating it into the 130-odd thousand filling stations dotted across America, which is even more.

And then you've got the same issues hydrogen has ever had - yes, electrolysis works, but it also requires you to put far more energy into the process than you get out of it from the fuel cell. Essentially all electrolysis is doing is adding a very energy-intensive process into the mix between a power station producing energy, and using that energy in a car.

For that reason, developing improved batteries is much more relevant.

Hydrogen might be more suitable for heavy goods vehicles, buses etc, because the required infrastructure would be smaller. But for cars, it would need a serious re-think before it makes more sense than improved batteries.

And as Evan says above, biofuel is a pretty good solution too, particularly once cellulosic bio-ethanol production can be upscaled to suitable numbers, as it's not only largely carbon-neutral, but it uses up waste products from food - even better.

 

[niky]

Hydrogen has two main drawbacks... The huge amount of energy wasted in electrolysis, and the difficulty of properly packaging it. Getting good range out of a tank of gasoline is easy. Getting good range out of a tank of propane is a bit harder... it requires a pressurized tank. CNG? Requires about 3000 psi. Hydrogen, around 5000. To compress it that densely requires wasting even more electricity, and requires a very strong, very expensive tank.

Or a fuel cell, which is even more expensive. At which point, even an EV Lithium ion battery looks cheap.

Which is why many off-grid solar enthusiasts use manufactured or home-built EVs,but only manufacturers are playing with hydrogen.

 

[AMCNUT]

I'm currently writing a paper about whether or not hydrogen will replace fossil fuels in cars for one of my courses.

I logged into GTP to take a break from my research, and instead am confronted by the same debates as I just finished looking at elsewhere!

I think that hydrogen will eventually become feasible for higher-end vehicles, but I think that the average car 30 or 50 years from now will utilize some manner of a hybrid-electric drive train. It's too bad I can't quote some of the posts in this thread in my paper - that'd make writing it a billion times more fun!

 

[Tornado]

It does when the cartel wants to stay in business. The only reason they get away with what they do is because oil is a necessity. But if we didn't have to have it, such as if most cars weren't powered by gasoline, the cartel would have much less leverage. Competition would be the end of their system.

But for the 10-20 years (if not longer) where electric vehicles start to make inroads on ICE cars but not to the extent that oil companies start losing their shirts over the issue, the price of gas will just decrease along with demand. Which is better for enthusiasts who care about what kind of engine their car has.


It isn't as if beige Camry driver and his millions of buddies are instantly going to make the switch over. Even if there was a huge push behind it tomorrow and electric cars became practical for everyone (which isn't the case), we are still at least a couple decades away from the scenario you are describing.

 

[BTK]

Hello guys, interesting discussions here. Thought I would throw this in:

Who's to say that in 10-15 years that every car on the road will have direct injection? The comment that the ICE will die, I just don't believe. The advancements in turbochargers and fuel injection in the last 20 years alone has led me to think that we will have trucks and car's running at 40+ mpg. Why not do what Ford did with their ecoboost V6 in a truck, on a LS or Modular motor? We know that direct injection and DIS (coil packs) are efficient, so why invest in this technology instead of starting fresh with EV?

Yes, I understand that EV will catch on and be much more popular in the future. But why not modify what we have for the time being and slowly convert? Sure, electrolysis is a huge energy drain, but am I the only one who thinks that our electricity grids are some of the least efficient items in the world? I've grown up in coal country and know that most of the United States is powered by it. But why aren't we investing in other methods like hydro power, or transmit power through radio waves? We might have no-fly zones in fear of others being zapped, but it could work.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yes, I understand that EV will catch on and be much more popular in the future. But why not modify what we have for the time being and slowly convert?

That's what is happening. Internal combustion does have its limits though, so there's no harm in exploring other avenues.

 

[Azuremen]

That is completely incorrect. You're right in the fact that ICE won't work, it'll be electric engines. Look up the Honda FCX for one example among many. It's basically an electric hybrid that takes away gasoline and puts in compressed hydrogen in its place.

You clearly don't understand what Fuel Cells are, if you are calling it a hybrid. There is no combustion engine in it - it is purely an electric vehicle. And the only difference is the battery, yes, battery.

Fuel Cells are basically another type of battery, that instead of using chemical states with Lithium ions and such, use hydrogen passing through the cell. But here is the catch - instead of just running electricity straight into the car as you do with standard batteries, you do a process you described here:

The car owner, down the road potentially, will be able to make their own compressed hydrogen fuel at their house for the cost of pumping water(any source), filtering, and electrolysis.

And thermodynamics means you aren't going to get the electricity you put into it back from the fuel cell reaction. Period. And you forgot pressurizing it to 5000 psi or the associated costs of pumping water and de-ionizing it before electrolysis. Which drives the cost up considerably over just going straight into batteries.

I'm talking about one of the biggest drains on our pockets(gasoline).

It currently costs $20 or so to fill the FCX. Only half the cost of filling a car with gasoline for similar range. Not exactly dramatically cheaper and this is being subsidized by the government. And converting the whole country to have fueling stations would cost quite a bit more than rapid charge stations for electric cars. And much more than trickle charge stations for parking garages, etc.

If the cars are made properly and you have too much electricity left over in the batteries, you could feed it back to your house to fill up your car the next day, or whenever.

You mean the energy you already spent converting water and electricity to hydrogen and then back into electric, run through an electric motor, converted to kinetic, and then reclaimed? It isn't going to be enough to merit pumping back into the grid, more so since it will be expended every time you drive off a stop light. Many gasoline electric hybrids also already do this and the recovery is rather small.

It will be the answer for automobiles. It is not the answer overall for everything.

No, it isn't the answer for personal transit. And even more so when you consider fuel cells have even more issues in the cold than batteries do, along with problems with the resulting water vapor that comes in freezing temperatures.

 

[niky]

As regards direct injection... each injector costs roughly $500-$700, and a variable geometry turbo is a complicated and expensive piece of kit. Ignoring the costs of building stronger internals to cope with turbocharging and the extra programming and processing power required (as well as the ultra-sensitive knock sensors), the direct injection premium is around $2000-$3000 per car versus the regular item, as opposed to the roughly $6000 hybrid premium. So going hybrid doesn't exactly make zero sense.

-

Unfortunately, EVs are never going to be a big part of the mix unless they can get battery costs way down. Setting aside the cost of motors, controllers and wiring, a set of the cheapest batteries that will give you a fifty mile range... say... deep-cycle lead acids, is in the $6000 region (I'm ballparking here... as such a pack would simply be too big for consideration... a company nearby uses about $3000 worth of batteries for a 25 mile range at low speeds only), but for a battery pack that won't take up every available square inch of extra space, you're looking at lithium, which is around $12,000 or so for that range... maybe $25,000 for a hundred mile range... perhaps HFS can come up with better numbers, because we don't get the Leaf or Volt here, yet.

That's a huge price premium, one that many people are still completely unwilling to pay.

-

One thing I like about direct injection is it's pushing the development and utilization of ultra-sensitive knock sensors forward. Which means that as soon as the prices of the components get cheap enough, maybe HCCI engines (gasoline engines which "diesel" at low loads) will be possible.

I'm currently writing a paper about whether or not hydrogen will replace fossil fuels in cars for one of my courses.

I logged into GTP to take a break from my research, and instead am confronted by the same debates as I just finished looking at elsewhere!

I think that hydrogen will eventually become feasible for higher-end vehicles, but I think that the average car 30 or 50 years from now will utilize some manner of a hybrid-electric drive train. It's too bad I can't quote some of the posts in this thread in my paper - that'd make writing it a billion times more fun!

If you'd like, we could collate it all into one article, print it on one of our websites. HFS's American website is better, it's green! My Philippine site is a general car site, and I don't know if the American site I contribute to is interested in this kind of stuff.

 

[Jubby]

I respect all of your opinions, but I'm sorry that I cannot agree. My major point is that it may seem very expensive and unrealistic now, but we need to think for the future, not just 5-10 years. There's a major reason that it seems far fetched, and that is the people who can make it happen... just don't.
My previous points are not made for "right now". They're made to be realized for over time--- in the future. I apologize if I made it seem like this would be an idea realized over night, or in a year. This is a reality I believe will start to happen, but start in 5-20 years.

You clearly don't understand what Fuel Cells are, if you are calling it a hybrid. There is no combustion engine in it - it is purely an electric vehicle. And the only difference is the battery, yes, battery.

No, I fully understand everything behind the fuel cell and CH2. I was analogizing it to a hybrid without the ICE. I understand my last sentence wasn't abundantly clear, sorry. I didn't want to assume you were read up on it.

And thermodynamics means you aren't going to get the electricity you put into it back from the fuel cell reaction. Period. And you forgot pressurizing it to 5000 psi or the associated costs of pumping water and de-ionizing it before electrolysis. Which drives the cost up considerably over just going straight into batteries.

And gasoline is so much more efficient? You have to spend money to get it out of the ground, refine it, and ship it. Both processes have similar ideas, but you can get water from just about anywhere. Fossil fuels aren't everywhere. Also, I didn't say it was going to be free. If it was free, we'd have it already. We need to refine our process for making it viable, not trying to find ways around it. Yes, it may not be the most cost feasible option this second, but over time, that will probably change.

It currently costs $20 or so to fill the FCX. Only half the cost of filling a car with gasoline for similar range. Not exactly dramatically cheaper and this is being subsidized by the government. And converting the whole country to have fueling stations would cost quite a bit more than rapid charge stations for electric cars. And much more than trickle charge stations for parking garages, etc.

Thank you for looking that up. I'd take 1/2 the price, even at subsidized prices, as the taxes we pay go to it. At least we'd get a return on it. Changing all the fuel stations in the country, the world... is that hard? Sure. We threw up millions of gasoline pumps(which wasn't easy), so why not convert them to something that will never go away? Even at $2.50-$3/kg, that price won't go up much, it's better controlled by each nation or area, rather than OPEC et al. That's why our power is so cheap $0.06-$0.08 kWh (coal, etc). Unfortunately, that wont last forever.

Maybe you are right and maybe small scale usage isn't the best. They at least have to think of a way to use this resource as a way to power something. Who knows, maybe the grid itself.

Your point of batteries (from the electricity well, to the charging station, to a Li-ion battery) is an excellent point, and efficient. How do you get the electricity? Coal, gas... all non renewable. Maybe the batteries will be the future inside the car, but I stand in the belief that hydrogen will be what charges the batteries- some way, some how(how? well, I wish I knew exactly the best way). Yes, the cell is not the best method right now, but we can make it better. All I know is what we have to work with in existing technology, make it better, while considering what will be available in 100 years. Which is more likely to be gone in 100 years: fossil fuels or water?

So, I'd ask, what will be a viable option in say... 200 years?

 

[Azuremen]

Your point of batteries (from the electricity well, to the charging station, to a Li-ion battery) is an excellent point, and efficient. How do you get the electricity? Coal, gas... all non renewable. Maybe the batteries will be the future inside the car, but I stand in the belief that hydrogen will be what charges the batteries- some way, some how(how? well, I wish I knew exactly the best way). Yes, the cell is not the best method right now, but we can make it better. All I know is what we have to work with in existing technology, make it better, while considering what will be available in 100 years. Which is more likely to be gone in 100 years: fossil fuels or water?

You seem to be forgetting that in order to get hydrogen out of water, you need electricity. All you are doing is adding an extra step from the power station.

With a battery based electric car you have this:

Power Station (Coal/Nuclear/Hydro/etc) -> Grid -> Battery in car -> Electric Motor

With a fuel cell based car like the FCX you have:

Power Station (Coal/Nuclear/Hydro/etc) -> Grid -> Convert to hydrogen -> Tank in car -> Convert back to electricity -> Electric Motor

You aren't removing a single thing from the process, just adding more middle-men, where at every step you are losing energy to entropy. Thermodynamics can't really be stopped. Hydrogen doesn't charge any batteries in Fuel Cell based cars either, those are charged from recovery systems employed on many hybrid cars already.

And in 200 years, we will likely use public transit for 95% of things, with battery based electric cars. Battery technology will change in 200 years, and likely we could do away with it entirely using quantum entanglement or some other cool wizardy to beam energy, sans wires.

 

[niky]

My bet is on Casimir-Effect powered engines...

But still, the big problem with Zero-point energy or quantum energy is the potential is huge, but extracting that potential, much like extracting power from a non-moving magnetic generator, is impossible without inputting energy first.

I've just read through chapters of "Free Energy", and it's unbelievable how many people believe a drum covered in an asymmetrical array of permanent magnets interacting with a cylinder with another asymmetrical array of permanent magnets can grant them perpetual motion...

With quantum entanglement, that only works because you can't transmit data that way. In other words, entanglement works only insofar as you observe entangled particles having the same state, but you can't alter that state and transmit information or energy via entanglement, as this violates the light speed limit.

We could beam microwave energy, but that's pretty wasteful. My favorite method of energy storage would be a kinetic battery spinning at some ungodly rpm. Imagine the fireworks when you breach the containment on one of those suckers...

 

[White & Nerdy]

I see the discussion has gone off in an entirely new direction.

Basically, I see four problems with electric cars that would not be shared by hydrogen. Four very fundamental problems.

1. Unlike a liquid-powered car, they can't be completely refuelled in five minutes or less. That's probably the biggest one, because it affects everyone who owns one of them. I don't know about you, but I'd like a car that's ready to go whenever I need it to be - even on very short notice.
2. Temperature sensetivity. Whereas a normal car runs better in cold weather (denser intake air, lower underhood temperatures), a battery-powered car loses A LOT of range as the temperature drops and doesn't derive much performance benefit. I go into Anchorage (60 miles one way) every other week, and a Nissan Leaf, according to data collected by Consumer Reports, would be extremely lucky to make it on a single charge during the winter. It would be even luckier to make it all the way back, since those quick chargers only go to 80% and I'm probably not going to be there long enough for a full charge.
3. No noise, no gearstick, basically no driving experience. An all-electric future would be the death of car culture.
4. Dangerous for the DIY'er. While there are some electric appliances that can be safely dealt with at home, I don't think electric cars would be one of them. Considering the level of power being dealt with, I wouldn't fiddle with those wires if I were you...

As for my earlier comment about San Francisco, anything that's wrong with that place is probably wrong with the whole state of California. Like the highly liberal political climate or the bull-headed emissions & inspection laws (only Utah's are worse). San Francisco just seems like it would be the worst part.

 

[niky]

1. Unlike a liquid-powered car, they can't be completely refuelled in five minutes or less. That's probably the biggest one, because it affects everyone who owns one of them. I don't know about you, but I'd like a car that's ready to go whenever I need it to be - even on very short notice.

True, for now. However, clever charge controllers are bringing times down, and new advancements in batteries are starting to make quick charge batteries seem feasible.

2. Temperature sensetivity. Whereas a normal car runs better in cold weather (denser intake air, lower underhood temperatures), a battery-powered car loses A LOT of range as the temperature drops and doesn't derive much performance benefit. I go into Anchorage (60 miles one way) every other week, and a Nissan Leaf, according to data collected by Consumer Reports, would be extremely lucky to make it on a single charge during the winter. It would be even luckier to make it all the way back, since those quick chargers only go to 80% and I'm probably not going to be there long enough for a full charge.

True, for now. But as regards 80%, if you're not going to be there more than ten minutes, why travel over fifty miles?

-

What cars run better in cold weather? Cars need fluids to stay hot to stay in the proper viscosity range. In fact... I'm struggling to remember the last time anyone complained that they were getting better fuel economy in cold weather... The only thing better about cold weather is the cold, dense air charge. Cold gasoline is terrible for economy. Cold oil is even worse.

3. No noise, no gearstick, basically no driving experience. An all-electric future would be the death of car culture.

Have you actually driven a new-ish car? Most cars either sound like sewing machines or don't sound like anything at all. Thanks to the need for catalytic converters and pre-cats, as well as noise regulations, most modern cars are very quiet. In fact, manufacturers have to attach speakers going from the engine to the cabin just so you can hear something besides the hum of the AC. Don't even ask about exhaust noise. During our "test-fest", a lot of older drivers were getting in the cars and twisting the keys in the ignition of most cars even though the engines were already on.

Eventually, the need for better range will see mainstream electric cars get multi-gear boxes. Hell, many DIYers use converted gearboxes for their cars, to give them climbing and overdrive gears. If you want a gearbox on your electric, you can have it. Most manufacturers don't use them because they're not concerned about efficiency losses at high speed, but enthusiasts will be.

4. Dangerous for the DIY'er. While there are some electric appliances that can be safely dealt with at home, I don't think electric cars would be one of them. Considering the level of power being dealt with, I wouldn't fiddle with those wires if I were you...

Ooh... don't try installing a header on your gasoline engine... the exhaust will burn you while you work!

Oh, wait...

-

You really should read up on electric cars and electric car conversions before making assumptions. Many armchair enthusiasts have built their own electric cars, and there are conversion kits for sale on the market at varying levels of complexity and cost for anyone who wants to fiddle with the stuff.

I'm dreaming of buying a forklift motor and power controller and an old Beetle shell and making my own EV, just for short distance trips. I already know distributors whom I could buy the electronics from. Heck, I'm wondering if I should just take my Dad's 8-seat EV cart off his hands (busted battery pack... they didn't use a charge controller when recharging) and cannibalize it for parts.

 

[Azuremen]

*A lot of talk of theory stuff*

Keep in mind I mostly saying crazy far out solutions will exist by then, given the rate at which we are finding things out. It was a hypothetical 200 years into the future. Considering how far transportation has come in the last 200 years, from a horse to being able to put people in Space and all kinds of neat things, I'm sure we can't even properly envision what the case will be that much further down the road.

As for my earlier comment about San Francisco, anything that's wrong with that place is probably wrong with the whole state of California. Like the highly liberal political climate or the bull-headed emissions & inspection laws (only Utah's are worse). San Francisco just seems like it would be the worst part.

But guess what state is most populous? And by a decent margin? Oh wait, California. So you can't exactly ignore them in a "well, their regulations are stupid" manner.

Niky addressed the rest of your points fairly well. Keep in mind, what you personally need is hardly what the majority of the word needs. What someone is Alaska needs is absolutely trivial in comparison to the majority of populations, which are more densely packed and in more temperate climates.

What cars run better in cold weather? Cars need fluids to stay hot to stay in the proper viscosity range. In fact... I'm struggling to remember the last time anyone complained that they were getting better fuel economy in cold weather... The only thing better about cold weather is the cold, dense air charge. Cold gasoline is terrible for economy. Cold oil is even worse.

Fuel Cells don't work particularly well in cold weather, and not at all beyond a certain point. And before someone says "well, what about in an ICE," hydrogen in an ICE doesn't have the same returns per volume at all compared to gasoline.

 

[homeforsummer]

1. Unlike a liquid-powered car, they can't be completely refuelled in five minutes or less. That's probably the biggest one, because it affects everyone who owns one of them. I don't know about you, but I'd like a car that's ready to go whenever I need it to be - even on very short notice.

As Niky hints, battery technology - and general electric car technology - is improving all the time. This has a few different outcomes.

1) Battery capacity (/technology in general - lithium air batteries are looking very promising at the moment) increases to the point where range is no longer an issue - I reckon around the 300-400 mile mark, "range anxiety" would no longer be a problem for the vast majority of people, and the ability to fast-charge in around 30 minutes would be more than suitable. Companies like Tesla are very, very close to this already.

2) Fast charging itself improves. Currently, it's quite possible to do an 80% charge in something like a Nissan Leaf in around 15 minutes with a fast charger (currently, every Nissan dealer around the country that sells the Leaf has a free fast charger, so you can actually use Nissan dealers like gas stations). One current problem with fast charging is that repeated use can harm the battery. Eliminate that problem, and people can fast-charge every time.

3) Improve vehicle aerodynamics, weight etc further. This gives the electric motor less work to do, which just like it would with a gasoline engine, means it doesn't use as much power to move down the road. It's essentially "free" range because neither electric motors nor batteries need to change to improve range.

2. Temperature sensetivity. Whereas a normal car runs better in cold weather (denser intake air, lower underhood temperatures), a battery-powered car loses A LOT of range as the temperature drops and doesn't derive much performance benefit. I go into Anchorage (60 miles one way) every other week, and a Nissan Leaf, according to data collected by Consumer Reports, would be extremely lucky to make it on a single charge during the winter. It would be even luckier to make it all the way back, since those quick chargers only go to 80% and I'm probably not going to be there long enough for a full charge.

Realistic points, but again, not impossible to change. In fact, some companies have already got around the problem - Tesla uses thermal management for its batteries - i.e. it cools them when they get hot, and heats them when they get cool. They're kept at the ideal temperature all the time, so range is preserved.

It adds a little expense, but just as with EVs in general, sell in high enough volume (as I expect the Tesla Model S will) and the price will come down.

3. No noise, no gearstick, basically no driving experience. An all-electric future would be the death of car culture.

A valid concern, but this is where I believe you're wrong.

Firstly, I suspect I'm correct in assuming that you've never driven an electric car before. I have. Several of them.

Yes - it's a completely different experience from driving a gasoline car. But then so far, that's a very good thing. I've driven electric versions of the Smart ForTwo, I've driven a Volt, a Renault Fluence, a Nissan Leaf prototype, and a Mercedes-Benz A-Class electric.

I.e, a city car, a mid-size car, a compact sedan, a compact and a subcompact.

Can you honestly say that any of those are any better off with the sort of tedious gasoline or diesel engines they normally come with? I can understand someone worrying if muscle cars suddenly started going electric, or supercars, but they're not - the odd company comes out with a high-performance or luxury EV, but that's only as an alternative, rather than the norm.

Instead, the electric cars I've driven so far have infinitely improved the experience of driving the dull, regular cars that are on the streets today. Most have pretty boring engines and either horrid auto boxes or very average manual gearshifts - so by getting rid of the average four-banger and gearbox and replacing it with a powerplant more refined than any Rolls Royce, the car becomes far better.

And they're even fun, in their own way. Firstly, torque from zero RPM is pretty fun - these are cars that would leave their petrol counterparts standing in town. And they're far, far smoother than any automatic car I've ever driven - utterly seamless. I can imagine it makes the average stressful city trip far less of an issue.

4. Dangerous for the DIY'er. While there are some electric appliances that can be safely dealt with at home, I don't think electric cars would be one of them. Considering the level of power being dealt with, I wouldn't fiddle with those wires if I were you...

Good news: Electric cars are essentially zero-maintenance.

Regular engines have hundreds of moving parts. They need to be coated in oil to make sure friction doesn't weld them together.

An electric motor has some magnets and some wire. It has one moving part, and requires no lubrication. It won't leave drips of oil on your driveway, it doesn't need coolant topping up, and every time you open the hood, it's still pristine under there.

I like getting my hands dirty with cars as much as the next guy here, but we're not talking classic cars or a project car here, we're talking about a car to take you to work and back every day. Something that you just want to work, rather than tinker with.

 

[ExigeEvan]

We could beam microwave energy, but that's pretty wasteful. My favorite method of energy storage would be a kinetic battery spinning at some ungodly rpm. Imagine the fireworks when you breach the containment on one of those suckers...

Err, like a Carbon Fibre flywheel doing 100,000 rpm? When it fails it simply de-laminates and turns into a giant brush. I was presented with one of these at a University interview, funky things.

2. Temperature sensetivity. Whereas a normal car runs better in cold weather (denser intake air, lower underhood temperatures), a battery-powered car loses A LOT of range as the temperature drops and doesn't derive much performance benefit. I go into Anchorage (60 miles one way) every other week, and a Nissan Leaf, according to data collected by Consumer Reports, would be extremely lucky to make it on a single charge during the winter. It would be even luckier to make it all the way back, since those quick chargers only go to 80% and I'm probably not going to be there long enough for a full charge.

You really don't think much about progress do you?

70 years ago cold weather made the most advanced mechanised army of the time, German panzer divisions, lumps of scrap. Now any main battle tank could fight an arctic war.

20 years ago "good winter starter" was a unique sales point for many second-hand cars. Now you expect cars to start in -20C without missing a beat.

Do you generally look further ahead than tomorrow?

Your point of batteries (from the electricity well, to the charging station, to a Li-ion battery) is an excellent point, and efficient. How do you get the electricity? Coal, gas... all non renewable. Maybe the batteries will be the future inside the car, but I stand in the belief that hydrogen will be what charges the batteries- some way, some how(how? well, I wish I knew exactly the best way). Yes, the cell is not the best method right now, but we can make it better. All I know is what we have to work with in existing technology, make it better, while considering what will be available in 100 years. Which is more likely to be gone in 100 years: fossil fuels or water?

So, I'd ask, what will be a viable option in say... 200 years?

Again, you've ignored the fact Hydrogen comes from an electrical process anyway.

 

[Jubby]

You seem to be forgetting that in order to get hydrogen out of water, you need electricity. All you are doing is adding an extra step from the power station.

You aren't removing a single thing from the process, just adding more middle-men, where at every step you are losing energy to entropy. Thermodynamics can't really be stopped. Hydrogen doesn't charge any batteries in Fuel Cell based cars either, those are charged from recovery systems employed on many hybrid cars already.

And in 200 years, we will likely use public transit for 95% of things, with battery based electric cars. Battery technology will change in 200 years, and likely we could do away with it entirely using quantum entanglement or some other cool wizardy to beam energy, sans wires.

Completely understood. I'm not just talking about the technology that the FCX has. I'm talking about hydrogen fuel as a holistic approach- beyond just compressed into fuel cells. That's probably a first step, as scientists are already procuring. I know I'm not removing anything from the process, but like you said things will change in 200 years. The procurement method will change and be better.

There isn't any magic to charge the batteries you speak of. You cannot just will the battery to have power. What item will complete the cycle. I believe it's hydrogen... in any form. This could be compressed or any of the other potential ways it could be procured for mass production. The only other potential option is cold fusion... but I won't start that debate!

As for the cool "sci-fi" stuff you're thinking of... that's more far fetched than my hydrogen idea, but I'll leave that be.

Thanks for continuing this debate. This is making me re-think my overall stance and staunch on the subject. I appreciate all the comments/posts.

 

[homeforsummer]

There isn't any magic to charge the batteries you speak of. You cannot just will the battery to have power

True, but you can improve the technology to increase energy density, reduce weight and so-on. Both of which are significantly more likely in the short to mid-term than hydrogen suddenly becoming viable.

 

[Azuremen]

Completely understood. I'm not just talking about the technology that the FCX has. I'm talking about hydrogen fuel as a holistic approach- beyond just compressed into fuel cells. That's probably a first step, as scientists are already procuring. I know I'm not removing anything from the process, but like you said things will change in 200 years. The procurement method will change and be better.

First, hydrogen isn't compressed into fuel cells. It is compressed into storage and then run through fuels cells, which recover electricity from hydrogen bonding with oxygen to form water.

Procuring hydrogen from water isn't going to get easier - energy must be invested, and a very easy to calculate amount, to separate Oxygen from Hydrogen in a water molecule. I must ask at this point if you've taken any proper chemistry and physics courses, or understand the underlying principals. The only way procuring hydrogen will be cheaper is if we reduce the cost of electricity, but then we might as well just put it into batteries.

There isn't any magic to charge the batteries you speak of. You cannot just will the battery to have power. What item will complete the cycle. I believe it's hydrogen... in any form. This could be compressed or any of the other potential ways it could be procured for mass production. The only other potential option is cold fusion... but I won't start that debate!

Again, you've failed to be clear here. It sounds like you are saying Hydrogen will somehow remove other steps from the process when it will only, ever, add more steps to the power process.

Hydrogen is just another battery, but one with more steps that will result in more power lost to entropy.

 

[Keef]

I'm on the side of these guys. I think I've explained in this thread before that hydrogen is vastly more complex to use as a fuel because in order to create useable hydrogen you must first utilize other resources that are already viable fuels in themselves. Coal is the most popular fuel used in the production of hydrogen...but why make hydrogen with it when we've already got a vast electrical infrastructure used to support the electricity we already make with coal? Oil and methane are also used in hydrogen production...but the same factors apply here. Electrolysis isn't nearly the most common way to produce hydrogen, mainly because it's the most difficult and expensive method. It required tremendous amounts of electricity...which is produced by multitudes of other viable fuels including the ones I already mentioned. Hydrogen production is just another step tacked onto the end of already-viable processes.

We could create renewable electricity with turbines or solar panels, but turbines are only useful in certain areas with consistently high winds, and solar farms are expensive to produce. Again, they already make useful electricity, so why use tremendous amounts of that useful electricity to create hydrogen?

Hydrogen is one of the least viable alternative fuels on the table right now. Burning coal in your fireplace would be more efficient than producing hydrogen to heat your home. It'd be safer too because coal doesn't explode violently.

 

[Jubby]

First, hydrogen isn't compressed into fuel cells. It is compressed into storage and then run through fuels cells, which recover electricity from hydrogen bonding with oxygen to form water.

Procuring hydrogen from water isn't going to get easier - energy must be invested, and a very easy to calculate amount, to separate Oxygen from Hydrogen in a water molecule. I must ask at this point if you've taken any proper chemistry and physics courses, or understand the underlying principals. The only way procuring hydrogen will be cheaper is if we reduce the cost of electricity, but then we might as well just put it into batteries.

Again, you've failed to be clear here. It sounds like you are saying Hydrogen will somehow remove other steps from the process when it will only, ever, add more steps to the power process.

Hydrogen is just another battery, but one with more steps that will result in more power lost to entropy.

Not to sound blase or anything, but I wasn't trying to teach or explain any of the process(es). I'm also not trying to write a dissertation defending my opinion. (Actually, I almost considered writing a paper on it ) I'm just generalizing and apparently missing or confusing a few points along the way, for that I apologize. Yes, I understand the principles you speak of. Yes, I've learned it. Truth be told, it's been a long time. That may help explain why my stance is being beaten upon. I know enough to know it's an option. I don't claim to be an expert, I just have a belief in it. I'm sorry, but I won't yield my belief for this technology in the long term.

I'm on the side of these guys. I think I've explained in this thread before that hydrogen is vastly more complex to use as a fuel because in order to create useable hydrogen you must first utilize other resources that are already viable fuels in themselves. Coal is the most popular fuel used in the production of hydrogen...but why make hydrogen with it when we've already got a vast electrical infrastructure used to support the electricity we already make with coal? Oil and methane are also used in hydrogen production...but the same factors apply here. Electrolysis isn't nearly the most common way to produce hydrogen, mainly because it's the most difficult and expensive method. It required tremendous amounts of electricity...which is produced by multitudes of other viable fuels including the ones I already mentioned. Hydrogen production is just another step tacked onto the end of already-viable processes.

We could create renewable electricity with turbines or solar panels, but turbines are only useful in certain areas with consistently high winds, and solar farms are expensive to produce. Again, they already make useful electricity, so why use tremendous amounts of that useful electricity to create hydrogen?

Hydrogen is one of the least viable alternative fuels on the table right now. Burning coal in your fireplace would be more efficient than producing hydrogen to heat your home. It'd be safer too because coal doesn't explode violently.

I don't disagree with your final statement. It's expensive. I know that. It's not viable right now. Right now we have some of the most cost effective methods for fuel. We still can work on that technology for the future when we've mined all of the coal, and exhausted all of the non-renewable energy sources. That's what I'm looking at. I see everyone saying "can't" and "won't", but I don't see anyone providing any concrete long term options using renewable energy sources.

 

[Joel]

Would I be wrong in saying that nuclear power and battery powered cars is pretty much the inevitability of the situation?

 

[Azuremen]

Not to sound blase or anything, but I wasn't trying to teach or explain any of the process(es). I'm also not trying to write a dissertation defending my opinion. (Actually, I almost considered writing a paper on it ) I'm just generalizing and apparently missing or confusing a few points along the way, for that I apologize. Yes, I understand the principles you speak of. Yes, I've learned it. Truth be told, it's been a long time. That may help explain why my stance is being beaten upon. I know enough to know it's an option. I don't claim to be an expert, I just have a belief in it. I'm sorry, but I won't yield my belief for this technology in the long term.

I just keep asking because you seem to think Hydrogen will just replace all power sources, and if anything, the opposite is true. I normally don't mind people's opinions unless they are just sound like they are wrong. How is an opinion wrong? It is saying something built on an idea that is factually wrong.

You make it sound like hydrogen is going to generate electricity for everything. Please clarify this.

Would I be wrong in saying that nuclear power and battery powered cars is pretty much the inevitability of the situation?

No, that is exactly where we will go. Either fission, which we have right now, or fusion down the road.

 

[Joel]

No, that is exactly where we will go. Either fission, which we have right now, or fusion down the road.

Well it seems to me to be the only viable solution going forward. Solar and wind power etc etc is a cute idea, but when the chips are down Nuclear seems to be the only way to get it done. Particularly if we're planning on running our cars with electricity.

It actually excites me, to think of a future where I'll unplug my car in the morning and drive to work. There's so many people on the road that would benefit so much from an electric car, so many cars that are just wasting gas. I know there's a big pushback against electric cars because they have "no soul", but what about the millions of people like myself driving Corollas and Camry's? Frankly, I don't care if my daily driver is internal combustion. I'd rather have an electric car for the quiteness, smoothness and torque. Of course, if I have the money when I'm older I'll hopefully buy an internal combustion car to have fun with on the weekend, but for the inevitable daily commute I'd prefer electric.

Just think of all the emissions from people in Corollas and Camrys, boring, dull appliance cars that don't need to be internal combustion much longer.

 

[Grand Prix]

Well it seems to me to be the only viable solution going forward. Solar and wind power etc etc is a cute idea, but when the chips are down Nuclear seems to be the only way to get it done. Particularly if we're planning on running our cars with electricity.

It actually excites me, to think of a future where I'll unplug my car in the morning and drive to work. There's so many people on the road that would benefit so much from an electric car, so many cars that are just wasting gas. I know there's a big pushback against electric cars because they have "no soul", but what about the millions of people like myself driving Corollas and Camry's? Frankly, I don't care if my daily driver is internal combustion. I'd rather have an electric car for the quiteness, smoothness and torque. Of course, if I have the money when I'm older I'll hopefully buy an internal combustion car to have fun with on the weekend, but for the inevitable daily commute I'd prefer electric.

Just think of all the emissions from people in Corollas and Camrys, boring, dull appliance cars that don't need to be internal combustion much longer.

👍 Precisely. Most commuter cars sound like crap anyway. Electric motors make perfect sense for them.

 

[Joel]

👍 Precisely. Most commuter cars sound like crap anyway. Electric motors make perfect sense for them.

I can understand people being upset with an electric Mustang or something, (although I'm sure a Tesla Roadster is ridiculously fun to drive), but who cares about how the engine sounds in a Corolla. It doesn't sound good, and I wouldn't miss it if someone replaced my engine with an electric powerplant tomorrow.

 

[Jubby]

I just keep asking because you seem to think Hydrogen will just replace all power sources, and if anything, the opposite is true. I normally don't mind people's opinions unless they are just sound like they are wrong. How is an opinion wrong? It is saying something built on an idea that is factually wrong.

You make it sound like hydrogen is going to generate electricity for everything. Please clarify this.

Oh, no... I don't think it's a complete replacement. I'm imagining it will be a portion of the pie. The idea of hydrogen working and being the answer in place of liquid fuels isn't factually wrong, as you're pointing it out as impractical and nonviable. Hydrogen will be the portable fuel, similar to the way we use gasoline today. Batteries are not fuel, they're a carrier. I thought the discussion was on fuels, not the carrier.

I suppose giving an example of what could be possible, in my mind, would be helpful. Don't evaluate the example for inefficiencies with the current known technology, please just take it at face value with the presumption that it's a potentially viable option when refined later down the road:

In trying to eliminate non-renewable energy, homes will probably be powered by some sort of wind/water hybrid through the grid, enhanced by solar panels. I imagine that cars will have some sort of battery technology, but having a backup source with the compressed hydrogen. If the batteries will only take you so far, or break down (fail), the hydrogen can take you the rest of the way and/or add a performance value(see next paragraph).

High performance vehicles probably won't run on just batteries alone(If at all), they'll run on something else. Hydrogen can provide up to 4 times as much power as gasoline. In terms of expenses, since when does expensive fuel deter racing enthusiasts? Today, people are using 110 octane at more than $10 per gallon.

Well it seems to me to be the only viable solution going forward. Solar and wind power etc etc is a cute idea, but when the chips are down Nuclear seems to be the only way to get it done. Particularly if we're planning on running our cars with electricity.

Fission is good, aside from the waste and the danger. Fusion is the ultimate, but I doubt we'll even get close to it in our grandchildren's lifetime.