Lindsey Graham is out of the race

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
With the recent advances in energy density of batteries it doesn't look like hydrogen fuel is going anywhere. It is much less efficient than electric cars - the only advantage is that you can get a larger range. But it is this advantage that has been rapidly shrinking over the last decade or three. In 50 years' time most cars will be electric.

But the energy driving electric vehicles has to come from somewhere and if they burn fossil fuel to get that energy what kind of gains have you made overall?

Electric cars, in order to accomplish lowering CO2, has to be coupled with green energy if it is to be permanently viable.

Solar, wind, waves, hydro, that kind of thing, fusion if we ever get that going.

I think there is too high a price to pay downwind for fission. Like what to do with the inevitable waste products and the dangers of reactor crashes.

Sure we can build better and safer reactors, but are we?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I know you don't want transportation to be big business but we are stuck with it.

I have never said nor implied that I don't want transport to be big business.

You do know hydrogen has a number of advantages and the whole point is to get us off the tit of fossil fuels.
Hydrogen also has a lot of disadvantages:
1. It is not easy to store compactly and safely.
2. It is highly inefficient both in creating it and in utilising it.

Hydrogen right now may not be as viable as electric.....
Exactly. Yet it has been pushed by the fossil fuel industry in the US in the hope of delaying the advent of electric.

but science does march on and these new metal-organic matrices may be one answer as to getting H2 concentrated enough to equal petrol as far as distance goes.
Who cares? Electric will always beat it by a long shot.

I think the problems with H2 will be solved and we will see an infrastructure similar to petrol, filling stations that force gaseous H2 into a solid state storage and still giving us 500 Km range.
I think you are badly mistaken and haven't looked into it but have swallowed the fossil fuel industries mantra hook line and sinker.

You can use H2 in a regular internal combustion engine or through a fuel cell to an electric motor so I don't see the problem.
Internal combustion engines are not efficient. They do however make lots of money for car companies and parts suppliers.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But the energy driving electric vehicles has to come from somewhere and if they burn fossil fuel to get that energy what kind of gains have you made overall?

Electric cars, in order to accomplish lowering CO2, has to be coupled with green energy if it is to be permanently viable.

Solar, wind, waves, hydro, that kind of thing, fusion if we ever get tha ...[text shortened]... and the dangers of reactor crashes.

Sure we can build better and safer reactors, but are we?

The most efficient way of producing hydrogen (that I know of) is through electrolysis of water. That electricity also has to come from somewhere.

One of the main advantages of electric cars is that it reduces local pollution and thus improves air quality, by moving the pollution away from roads to a more controlled environment (mines and power plants). This does not affect CO2 so much but it does affect people's health as air pollution is a major killer globally.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But the energy driving electric vehicles has to come from somewhere and if they burn fossil fuel to get that energy what kind of gains have you made overall?

Look, you were talking about producing hydrogen from solar at a ridiculously poor efficiency, and then burning that hydrogen in a car again at poor efficiency. If instead you use solar and batteries then you save an enormous amount of energy and can use the extra solar energy for something else.

Electric cars, in order to accomplish lowering CO2, has to be coupled with green energy if it is to be permanently viable.
Sure they do in the long term. However, they are already twice as efficient in terms of CO2 produced than fossil fuel cars even if they are run off electricity from fossil fuels.

Solar, wind, waves, hydro, that kind of thing, fusion if we ever get that going.
All true but nothing you have said suggests hydrogen makes sense. Hydrogen won't magically make solar or wind plants cheaper or more likely to be built. Whether we use solar or wind has nothing whatsoever to do with hydrogen. Hydrogen is just a badly thought out temporary storage mechanism that simply cannot compete with batteries. And everybody knows that. Yet it has been pushed through the fossil fuel companies propaganda machine as the next big thing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is one example where science is providing answers:

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-kind-mof-coal-power.html

Reducing the amount of CO2 by capturing the carbon in the process of burning coal, or any other fossil fuel.

There are literally thousands of such programs going on right now, from solar powered hydrogen generators, which are up to 24% con ...[text shortened]... s not panic time just yet. Come back in 20 years, maybe you can work yourself into a panic then.

Sure, they will come up with "solutions". They always do.

But will any of these solutions ever solve the problem of driving up the price of fossil fuels and collecting large pots of money from us?

Hell no. That's what it is all about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Look, you were talking about producing hydrogen from solar at a ridiculously poor efficiency, and then burning that hydrogen in a car again at poor efficiency. If instead you use solar and batteries then you save an enormous amount of energy and can use the extra solar energy for something else.

[b]Electric cars, in order to accomplish lowering CO2, ha ...[text shortened]... t it has been pushed through the fossil fuel companies propaganda machine as the next big thing.

H2 might not be as efficient as electrics but it can power fuel cells and in places where it is hard to use batteries, that can be a definite advantage. The article I posted mentioned an overall efficiency of 24 % from a 31% solar cell. I think that means the actual H2 cycle is more like 60 or 70% efficient by itself. They seem to be saying the are only losing 7% of the energy from the sun. The over all efficiency of H2 production is still greater than most solar cells which commercially top out at around 22%. It looks to me like the limiting factor in H2 production from that assembly is the solar cell efficiency.
If the solar efficiency went to say 70% the H2 end would be significantly higher, probably topping out at 60 odd % total efficiency.

But using electrics and getting the power needed from coal fired plants, what have you gained?

A real gain would come from solar cell paint, painted directly on the skins of the vehicles then when parked in the sun they might have enough power to get home with no connection to power plugs at all. And at home, solar cells to charge the batteries,

That would be the best scenario.

Originally posted by whodey
But will any of these solutions ever solve the problem of driving up the price of fossil fuels and collecting large pots of money from us?

Buy a Tesla today and you can drive long distance for free. Yes, that's absolutely free. For local driving it will cost you significantly less than your current gas guzzler. Add to that performance that can beet a Ferrari, the safest car on road bar none, and near self driving capabilities on highways.

Originally posted by sonhouse
H2 might not be as efficient as electrics but it can power fuel cells and in places where it is hard to use batteries, that can be a definite advantage.

Which places are these?

The article I posted mentioned an overall efficiency of 24 % from a 31% solar cell. I think that means the actual H2 cycle is more like 60 or 70% efficient by itself.
I very much doubt that but that is still 30% of the energy just wasted for no reason.

The over all efficiency of H2 production is still greater than most solar cells which commercially top out at around 22%.
You seem to be confused about what is going on. They took top of the range solar cells and then used the electricity to create hydrogen. The hydrogen creation has nothing whatsoever to do with the efficiency of the solar cells. The same solar cells could be used to charge a battery and save that 30% being lost.

If the solar efficiency went to say 70% the H2 end would be significantly higher, probably topping out at 60 odd % total efficiency.
You can't get rid off all the losses in creating hydrogen. Meanwhile there is no reason to create hydrogen in the first place. So why waste?

But using electrics and getting the power needed from coal fired plants, what have you gained?
Why are you so convinced that electric cars must get their power from coal fired plants? Stop being ridiculous.

These are the options under discussion:
1. Solar or fossil fuel electricity -> hydrogen -> fuel cell or combustion engine -> power.
2. Solar or fossil fuel electricity -> battery -> power.
In 1. there are significant losses and many other problems.

Your pretence that hydrogen production is somehow tied to solar and batteries are tied to fossil fuels is just ridiculous. Seriously, which car company is paying you to write this?

A real gain would come from solar cell paint, painted directly on the skins of the vehicles then when parked in the sun they might have enough power to get home with no connection to power plugs at all. And at home, solar cells to charge the batteries,

That would be the best scenario.
I doubt that the area on a car is sufficient, but yes that would be the best scenario.

And for your edification Tesla has provided free to use super chargers through out the US and Europe and plans to power all of them with solar before too long.

NO NEED FOR HYDROGEN.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Buy a Tesla today and you can drive long distance for free. Yes, that's absolutely free. For local driving it will cost you significantly less than your current gas guzzler. Add to that performance that can beet a Ferrari, the safest car on road bar none, and near self driving capabilities on highways.

How much does one cost?

Originally posted by whodey
How much does one cost?

Its a luxury sedan, so quite a bit. I am sure you can afford one given that you promote the policies of the rich. Either you are rich or being paid by the rich to promote them. If you can't afford one, then they are paying you too little.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Buy a Tesla today and you can drive long distance for free. Yes, that's absolutely free. For local driving it will cost you significantly less than your current gas guzzler. Add to that performance that can beet a Ferrari, the safest car on road bar none, and near self driving capabilities on highways.

You mean you have access to free electricity? Where do you get that? I want some!

One thing about electric cars: the motors are rated for about 160,000 km. Those things are expensive, maybe $4000 or so.

My little commuter car, a petrol car, Hyundai Accent, gets 33 Mpg and already has 140,000 miles on it and is good for probably twice that or more.

Today's petrol engines are very long lasting compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

I would hope if electrics win out, they figure out how to make electric motors that last as long as petrol powered cars.

I don't understand why they have a relatively short lifespan like that, there is only a couple of moving parts, the rotor/shaft and the bearings. There isn't much to go wrong there compared to a gas machine with its thousand parts.

There is also the lifetime of the batteries to take into consideration, lasting 3 or years max and clocking in at 10 to 15 thousand bucks.

They would certainly charge slower than H2.

If the batteries lasted 5 years and motors rated at 300,000 Km I would certainly consider one for my commute.
But I drive 250 km a day, not many electrics at present give that much range, And of course if it is rated that good, that is when the batteries are new. As they age, the range goes down and a 2 year old battery is probably only going to be rated at 70% of new at best.

Another problem is, what do you do if you run out of juice on a trip, not paying attention to the Kwhr meter or something?

You are not going to just call up AAA and have them give you a couple of gallons of Petrol like you get now. What you actually do is call for a tow truck and tow it to a charging station and wait for what, 4 hours till it gets charged up again?

In that regard, the hybrid is better. You run out of juice for the battery, the petrol engine cuts in and you are still on the road. Run out of petrol, if you are a member of AAA, they come out with a couple of gallons of gas and you are on your way.

That won't happen with an all electric vehicle.

I imagine they might have some kind of emergency solution eventually but for now, if you run out with electrics OR H2 cars, you are out of luck.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean you have access to free electricity? Where do you get that? I want some!

Tesla rapid charging stations are free to use for Tesla drivers for long distance driving for life.

One thing about electric cars: the motors are rated for about 160,000 km. Those things are expensive, maybe $4000 or so.
I am sure that varies depending on the car. (just as it does with gas cars). Where did you get those figures?

My little commuter car, a petrol car, Hyundai Accent, gets 33 Mpg and already has 140,000 miles on it and is good for probably twice that or more.
But you didn't do all that without servicing it or replacing any parts. My own car engine has had major work done on it several times. Electric car maintenance costs are considerably lower.

Today's petrol engines are very long lasting compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
How do you know that? They haven't lasted 20 or 30 years yet have they?

Did you know that todays electric cars are better than they were two or three years ago?

I would hope if electrics win out, they figure out how to make electric motors that last as long as petrol powered cars.
I am sure they either will do that or the cost of the motors will come down.

I don't understand why they have a relatively short lifespan like that, there is only a couple of moving parts, the rotor/shaft and the bearings. There isn't much to go wrong there compared to a gas machine with its thousand parts.
They can probably be refurbished.

There is also the lifetime of the batteries to take into consideration, lasting 3 or years max and clocking in at 10 to 15 thousand bucks.
Again, what is your source?

They would certainly charge slower than H2.
That is true, but no that important.

If the batteries lasted 5 years and motors rated at 300,000 Km I would certainly consider one for my commute.
If you are rich enough for a current Tesla then I strongly suggest you look into it. If not, then wait for their cheaper model coming out in a few years.

But I drive 250 km a day, not many electrics at present give that much range,
The Tesla does. I would recommend charging it at work though.

Another problem is, what do you do if you run out of juice on a trip, not paying attention to the Kwhr meter or something?
Stop and plug it in. And why would you not pay attention? It tells you when you start the journey exactly how much juice you have and whether you will get where you want to go etc. Its fuel calculations are very advanced.

You are not going to just call up AAA and have them give you a couple of gallons of Petrol like you get now.
Are you sure? Try asking them or Tesla if there is an emergency service for electric cars.

What you actually do is call for a tow truck and tow it to a charging station and wait for what, 4 hours till it gets charged up again?
I don't think you have to wait 4 hours to get enough charge to get where you were going.

In that regard, the hybrid is better. You run out of juice for the battery, the petrol engine cuts in and you are still on the road. Run out of petrol, if you are a member of AAA, they come out with a couple of gallons of gas and you are on your way.

That won't happen with an all electric vehicle.
Nevertheless, those are mostly just unwarranted anxieties. The truth is that plenty of people own and drive electric cars all around the world and they are doing just fine.

I imagine they might have some kind of emergency solution eventually but for now, if you run out with electrics OR H2 cars, you are out of luck.
And you know that how? Did you actually ask the AAA or did you just make that up? Which car company is paying you to write this stuff?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I imagine they might have some kind of emergency solution eventually but for now, if you run out with electrics OR H2 cars, you are out of luck.

Yea. You made it up.

The AAA thought of it back in 2011:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/aaa-to-begin-testing-of-electric-vehicle-charger-trucks-89651/

And by 2013 had the service available in Seatle:
http://www.plugincars.com/aaa-level-3-capable-mobile-charging-truck-rescue-126791.html

In addition Tesla Roadside assistance and AAA may be able to tow you to the nearest rapid charger.

But you really have to try hard to run out of power by accident:
http://teslapedia.org/model-s/tesla-virgin/what-if-you-completely-run-out-of-charge/

Originally posted by twhitehead
Tesla rapid charging stations are free to use for Tesla drivers for long distance driving for life.

[b]One thing about electric cars: the motors are rated for about 160,000 km. Those things are expensive, maybe $4000 or so.
I am sure that varies depending on the car. (just as it does with gas cars). Where did you get those figures?

My little ...[text shortened]... y ask the AAA or did you just make that up? Which car company is paying you to write this stuff?

Hey, I get paid a LOT for this stuff🙂 Why I have 3 Tesla's already🙂 I wish....

I imagine though that as electrics get more popular, there will be emergency vehicles equipped with chargers that can get you going some mileage. A truck with a generator on it or large batteries.

I guess batteries have gotten better now, they seem to be good for 8 years:

http://www.hybridcars.com/how-long-will-an-evs-battery-last/

One problem out of the way....

But I would have to be assured of some kind of emergency road service if my car ran out of juice.

I see Tesla says you are cooked if your battery goes to zero. Some chemical problem I guess, don't let it go totally out.

I could not afford ANY Tesla right now if ever. If I ever get to retire, I can see having an all electric van, where you can go to the store, junk yard or whatever, local driving.

For the price Tesla charges, they BETTER have free charging! I didn't know they offered that though.

I bet they drop that if they start selling reasonable priced versions in large numbers.

BTW, my Accent has had only gas, oil, and last month a new battery, and windshield wipers. That's it. No other work at all. Well there was this deer I hit, that dam near totaled the car but that's another story. It has been VERY reliable. I hope it lasts long enough to pay for it🙂

I have about 15 months left on the payments, over sometime in 2017.

One thing I won't do if I have to get another commuter car: forget the extended warranty. I paid $2700 for that for nothing, since nothing went wrong. Cars are just too reliable these days to be worth that much insurance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I imagine though that as electrics get more popular, there will be emergency vehicles equipped with chargers that can get you going some mileage. A truck with a generator on it or large batteries.

I just posted a link showing that there were such trucks In Seattle two years ago. I am sure there are more around the country by now.

But I would have to be assured of some kind of emergency road service if my car ran out of juice.
I already posted a link assuring you of that and another link explaining why it should never happen in the first place (the car warns you long before it happens).

I see Tesla says you are cooked if your battery goes to zero. Some chemical problem I guess, don't let it go totally out.
This is true for most rechargeable batteries. And for this reason they have clever battery management software to ensure that this never happens. They don't actually let you drive till the battery is truly zero. The zero mark on the gauge is the amount it is safe to drain them to.

For the price Tesla charges, they BETTER have free charging! I didn't know they offered that though.
Its for long distance only. And a Tesla is not over priced when compared to an equivalent luxury sedan from Mercedes or Ferrari.

I bet they drop that if they start selling reasonable priced versions in large numbers.
I bet you are wrong.

BTW, my Accent has had only gas, oil, and last month a new battery, and windshield wipers. That's it. No other work at all.
You've been lucky. I have replaced my battery three or four times in the last 10 years and overhauled the whole engine twice. Add two new radiators, window winders constantly breaking, and more and it really adds up. Most of the major costs have been engine related which should not happen in an electric.

One thing I won't do if I have to get another commuter car: forget the extended warranty. I paid $2700 for that for nothing, since nothing went wrong. Cars are just too reliable these days to be worth that much insurance.
I think you have just been lucky. I don't think all cars are that reliable. Admittedly every car I have ever owned or will ever own was second hand. My many of my neighbours have newish cars and they seem to give occasional problems.

In Zambia the advantage of electricity is even greater because electricity is cheaper and gas is more expensive than other parts of the world.