Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle? | Page 48 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle?

fastar1 said:
Having said all that, it remains to be seen. Tesla's squeezed through these predicaments before. Maybe they have a plan. Maybe they're smarter than every other car company. Maybe they'll get lucky. But I wouldn't count on any of that.
Click to expand...

It surely does. But I think the biggest hurdle is past them. They are getting a lot of traction/interest worldwide ... not just to sell cars, but to make them there as well. The same goes for Gigafactories. Are they smarter than every other car manufacturer. I do think so, but it needs to be said with a certain commentary ..... it's only valid as far as EV production and technology and only until others catch up. They have a huge benefit of being scrutinized in different ways, by the market, investors and their own stockholders. In another words no ICE baggage profit reliance from the past or the future. They have a clean slate nobody else does. They juggle just one huge EV ball .... while everyone else has two and has to play constantly their game.

Luck will have nothing to do with their success ....
 
mxs said:
Fuel cell is a no go for very foreseeable future (for a long list of reasons). Companies, like Honda and other will find governments who will keep spending our tax dollars to support to development (California is a great example). Instead of using the best available clean method for years to come and perfect it.
Click to expand...


I disagree here,

hydrogen powered cars make a lot of sense. 3-5 minute refills, and extended range. No need to plug in every night or at work. It makes total sense and its still Zero emissions.

Daily on all my feeds I see more and more automakers showing an interest in hydrogen. Even buses and train manufacturers are looking at this option.


Yes, yes, the filling station dilemma. Like any new tech, its expensive and not feasible for the small amount of hydrogen cars on the road (mainly California), but that will change as it becomes more commonplace.
 
mxs said:
It might be clever, but not very feasible as a significant contender to replace ICE.

Fuel cell is a no go for very foreseeable future (for a long list of reasons). Companies, like Honda and other will find governments who will keep spending our tax dollars to support to development (California is a great example). Instead of using the best available clean method for years to come and perfect it.
Click to expand...
The "best available clean method" is impossible for a purely capitalist system to determine without a suitable carbon tax in place to represent the cost of CO2 emissions from cars.

As a carbon tax is implemented then these other green subsidies can be gradually scaled back until they're removed entirely, and the best methods can prevail without having to be prescribed by government.
 
Hydrogen filling stations cost in the range of a half a million dollars (US, so $663,000 CAD) to construct and the actual hydrogen itself costs a LOT more than gas - filling the Honda Clarity that was discussed earlier in this thread costs $75 US, or just a few pennies under $100 CAD, and that's IF there's not road taxes and stuff put on it akin to how Canadian gasoline is typically upwards of twice as expensive as US gasoline.

So, it's gonna be decades before hydrogen becomes economically viable, both based on price, but availability.

$100 to fill a hydrogen Honda to go 366 miles (589K) or about $5 in electricity to recharge a Chevy Bolt to go 383KM.

Hydrogen $0.169/per Kilometer, Electricity $0.013/per Kilometer.

The electric car is 171% more economical.

It's not sound thinking to suggest that these numbers are going to come anywhere even remotely close to being comparable in the near future.

Add to this reality that electric car charging stations are proliferating very quickly now and the decision is clear.

For those old enough to remember, this is Betamax vs VHS all over again.
 
SunnY S said:
Yes, yes, the filling station dilemma. Like any new tech, its expensive and not feasible for the small amount of hydrogen cars on the road (mainly California), but that will change as it becomes more commonplace.
Click to expand...

But why does anything have to change at a time when clean electricity is competitive (when done right, not the Ontario boondoggle) and the grid is very efficient. Why to mess around with unpredictable Hydrogen. You really can't wait to drive your Honda Accord with high pressure tank under your butt, eh? I know it sounds so good ... :)

Sorry, but I do hope that the focus and any money go into electric, not hydrogen fool cell non-sense (that is not to say that Hydrogen time's might not come, but not before electric phase is explored and done with). Honda dropped the ball big time and the hole gets deeper and deeper for them, since they are sitting and not doing much as far as EV. Shame.
 
PrivatePilot said:
For those old enough to remember, this is Betamax vs VHS all over again.
Click to expand...

I think you are being kind to the hydrogen ... Betamax put up a fight, hydrogen will tap out real quick .... :) .... because the available funding needs to go to EV infrastructure and that's where the public will apply the pressure, hopefully.
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
The "best available clean method" is impossible for a purely capitalist system to determine without a suitable carbon tax in place to represent the cost of CO2 emissions from cars.

As a carbon tax is implemented then these other green subsidies can be gradually scaled back until they're removed entirely, and the best methods can prevail without having to be prescribed by government.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it's not hard to see why EV method is THE next one, whether it has subsidies or not. Availability and current infrastructure just simply are the driver as well as TESLA who is perhaps the biggest driver of all. Just to be clear I don't own any stocks of any sorts .... I actually quite dislike several things about Tesla, but hardly how they carry the flag of innovation as a distant EV leader, which has been acknowledged by several key people in the industry.

To me whether there's carbon tax or not, is only important to companies who are slow with EV adoption, because the longer there's none or very little, the longer they can keep relying on ICE based propulsion. Tesla will keep doing their thing whether there's a carbon tax or not ....
 
ok ok

Hydrogen cars ARE electric cars..... so any automaker exploring Hydrogen isn't missing the EV train...

I believe there are several ways to make Hydrogen, prices will drop... THE biggest game changer, will be if Home filling stations for Hydrogen becomes a reality, which they are working on, and with the way Technology progresses, wouldn't surprise me if it comes sooner than later.

Last but not least, with our hurry up and fast paced society we live in, I'd rather spend 3-5mins filling my hydrogen tank, then waiting 12 hours on a PLUG IN car....


edit: Good simple explanation on hydrogen.. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/hydrogen/tech.html
 
Last edited:
LOL ... I know how it works or supposed to work. But pls don't say hydrogen carrying cars are the same thing as EV's .... please, let's make this one important distinction.

The difference is huge, monstrous ... you will really do yourself a favor if you listen to Musk (however arrogant he comes across at times ..), because he has it absolutely right .... what idiotic idea it is to waste energy to create hydrogen (by electricity hungry electrolysis or other means), so you can end up using the hydrogen, to make electricity, to run your electric motor drive train???? Seriously, what is this good for? ... the myth that recharging comfortably home overnight, or at a future dense network of quick charges is somewhat a roadblock to EV future implementation? Why would you have to wait 12hrs at quick charging station??? ... unless you really like to, or think that you need to fill up your battery to the max to get you home and plug-in there.

I have read stuff like yours so many times that it makes me always pull my hair. Just do some more reading, before you get on the hydrogen bandwagon. People often call them fool cells, instead of fuel cells ... for a reason I guess.

Here's something, demonstrating how Honda frustrates people of all sorts ..... enjoy ....

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/In-crisis-mode-Honda-risks-losing-its-originality ..... lots of talk little action

http://insideevs.com/honda-opens-research-facility-germany/ ... goofing around with solar panel charging station .... LOL yet still just testing Honda FIT EV somewhere, while Nissan and Renault selling their EV's already. Sleeping much mighty Honda.

It's disappointing since people believe Honda is R&D superpower, but it's just spinning its wheels with stupid hydrogen power train. Stop advising them, would you? ... .:)
 
Got our hydro bill today. Our off peak usage (which is almost exclusively when the Volt was charged) was a total of $60. This of course includes our other typical usage, a huge portion of which we shift to off peak usage including the dishwasher, pool pump., washer, and dryer...as well as everyday regular use in the evenings. I attribute about $35 of that $60 total being car charging.

We drove at least 1 full charge per day, equalling probably an average of 50KM, with weekends often using 1.5 charges per day worth of kilometers.

So, roughly that comes out to 34 charges total, at 50KM each, for a rough total of 1700KM driven on electricity alone.

So, 1700KM for the equivalent of about 30L of gasoline given the average price over the last month.

So, if we were to equate the cost of driving electric to gas (to make it simpler for some people to understand) the Volt would have achieved the fuel economy equivalent of 0.017L/100KM.

I trust why people can see why our next car will be a pure electric like the Bolt.
 
Hydrogen "home filling stations" work by chemical reformulation of natural gas. This is a pointless extra step compared to simply using natural gas directly (and natural gas itself is a whole lot easier to store on the vehicle! - not as easy as a liquid fuel, but far easier than hydrogen). Extra steps require energy (there is a loss at every step) and at a system level it doesn't get "us" as a society away from fossil fuel. This isn't the way to go.

Hydrogen does not exist naturally on its own on earth - it's always combined with something else, e.g. oxygen, in water. It takes energy to extract it - electrolysis has substantial loss. It takes energy to compress the hydrogen to a very high pressure so that it can be stored in a reasonable volume; that is also quite substantial and you don't get that energy back when you use it. There is NO method of operating a vehicle using hydrogen, that is more efficient than using whatever the energy source was for producing hydrogen directly and skipping the hydrogen step. (Fuel cells can be configured to operate on natural gas, by the way.)

Hydrogen is exceptionally difficult to store and transport. It takes up a lot of volume for its energy content (means you need big pipes). It leaks out (and can be a fire hazard!) through the slightest openings. It leaks THROUGH many materials at the molecular level. It chemically reacts with metals and causes something called "hydrogen embrittlement".

There certainly will be specialised applications where its advantages outweigh its significant costs. But for mass-market transportation ... it's not going to happen.

I'm aware of one such specialised application ... unfortunately I signed a NDA so there's only so much I can say. Suffice it that the above-mentioned "half million dollars" is ... a little on the low side. The hydrogen storage is outside in an above-ground tank. The pipe to the delivery system some distance away and inside a building is one continuous seamless length of pipe ... no fittings. The filling area has some fairly exceptional leak detection and fire protection apparatus. The thing that connects to the vehicle is a smidge more complicated than the filling nozzle at a gasoline station because of the measures that have to be taken against leaks, i.e. fire.

Hydrogen as a proposed vehicle fuel source only exists because prior to the development of lithium-based batteries with decent power density, it was seen as the only way to achieve zero emissions (at the vehicle ... any such statement doesn't factor in whatever was involved in producing, storing, and transporting the hydrogen), so governments got involved and offered significant research grants.
 
fastar1 said:
Man, if this is the subject of your NDA, I hope you can help put a stop to it.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/7373713-ontario-looks-at-hydrogen-powered-trains-for-go-transit/

This has 'impending boondoggle' written all over it.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Last I'd heard GO was considering electrifying all the tracks and going with electromotive vs diesel, or (sigh) Hydrogen. I agree, this hydrogen powered GO train plan seems to me to be a great example of someone having a good intention in their head, but not truly understanding the bigger picture - Brian's response above is a great example of the "Good intention, bad reality" situation.
 
Last edited:
It makes zero sense to use hydrogen for GO Transit. The trains follow a defined path, they can do grid-connected electric. That has its own set of complications but there are no technological breakthroughs needed.
 
Brian P said:
It makes zero sense to use hydrogen for GO Transit.
Click to expand...

I hope someone who actually better understands the realities gets that through to the relevant politicians brains before a foolhardy decision is made...and more multi billion dollar contracts for new locomotives, filling stations, hydrogen generating equipment, transportation (etc etc etc ad multi million dollar infinitum) are signed.

I agree, stringing some overhead lines and using the same electric locomotive technology already in use elsewhere around the world makes far more sense than some (agreed) boondoggle in the making.
 
Last edited:
PrivatePilot said:
I hope someone who actually better understands the realities gets that through to the relevant politicians brains before a foolhardy decision is made...and more multi billion dollar contracts for new locomotives, filling stations, hydrogen generating equipment, transportation (etc etc etc ad multi million dollar infinitum) are signed.

I agree, stringing some overhead lines and using the same electric locomotive technology already in use elsewhere around the world makes far more sense than some (agreed) boondoggle in the making.
Click to expand...

How will that happen? How does a cabinet minister that has never worked in e.g. medical field is in charge of Health Care and someone who has never worked in Environmental areas become the Environment cabinet minister. And then they switch jobs 2 years later.

This will be about companies getting policies geared to them and govt. capitulating. We spent $1 BILLION NOT to build a power plant.
It was "cancellation fees". Are we saying the govt does not have lawyers or business minded ppl that would have looked at the terms and conditions of the contract.
Come on!

Develop the electric grid and call it a day. We have other challenges to deal with. The planes, trains, and boats are the big polluters but no mention of them just about how bad motorcycles are. lol
 
Brian P said:
It makes zero sense to use hydrogen for GO Transit. The trains follow a defined path, they can do grid-connected electric. That has its own set of complications but there are no technological breakthroughs needed.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how the very obvious needs to be stated over and over ... yet the politicians always find a away to cave in to the lobbyists to dole out more money for something which should be clear "No" answer to.
 
mxs said:
It's amazing how the very obvious needs to be stated over and over ... yet the politicians always find a away to cave in to the lobbyists to dole out more money for something which should be clear "No" answer to.
Click to expand...

We need a "Thanks" button on here. Well said but sadly it doesn't only apply to politicians. Common sense is becoming less and less common ...
 
I'm just a lone voice (of an engineer who specialised in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics almost 30 years ago). They won't listen to lone voices who happen to know the subject matter. They'll insist on spending millions on studies that will either (A) find the same conclusion, if they're honest, or (B) recommend further study, if whoever is commissioned to do the study knows who's paying for their food on the table and the roof over their head ... Governments (collectively) have spent millions, if not billions, on hydrogen research over the last couple of decades; how could we change course now (and thus admit that those millions/billions are a sunk cost, and make ourselves look bad for having spent all that)?

It's been said that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and always will be.

In fairness, I can't really fault the beginnings of the studies on hydrogen power, which started back in an era when cars were still using leaded gas and catalytic converters were only in a research phase and the only viable commercialized rechargeable batteries were lead/acid, and Los Angeles (and London) had smog problems that were horrendous compared to what they have now.

Lithium-based batteries changed all that. Lithium-sulfur may be the next step. There are some hurdles to get through, but they're known - that was true of lithium-ion and LiFePo 10 or 15 years ago, too.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ve-critical-flaw-in-lithium-sulfur-batteries/

https://oxisenergy.com/

http://www.sionpower.com/

The above two companies don't have commercial products yet, but the second one appears to have licensed some technology to LG Chem, and they've had some interesting demonstration projects.

LiS battery packs have been demonstrated with capacity in the 350 W.h/kg range. A 60 kWh battery pack for a decent electric car would weigh about 170 kg in that case.
 
Rut roh, I though we were gonna save the planet with all of this electrification of horrible ICE powered cars:

The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.

This news, from a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, will no doubt delight all those U.S. taxpayers who have been forking out billions of dollars to prop up Tesla’s share price having been assured by their government that subsidizing overpriced electric cars represents a vital step towards “combatting climate change.”

The report, commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, cannot easily be dismissed because it is a meta-analysis (ie a summary) of all the available studies on the subject.

The report shows that the battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. The researchers did not study individual bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take an example: Two common electric cars on the market, the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S, the batteries about 30 kWh and 100 kWh.

Even when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. As a comparison, a trip for one person round trip from Stockholm to New York by air causes the release of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO calculation.

...

Truly the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than such non-Potemkin U.S. car manufacturers as Ford and General Motors grows more mysterious by the hour.


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom