Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"range - 100 miles/charge based upon US EPA LA4 City cycle*"






*Based upon US EPA LA4 city cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml Battery capacity decreases with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, | and battery age.




So basically 100 miles/charge if you are really lucky on a good day with the wind behind you with a brand new car

Edit: Even better, I just clicked on the "performance" tab, and now have a blank page

Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

malfred wrote:Oh right, Chicago still has a public transit system!

Kind of. It's kind of stripped down as far as the routes go if you aren't immediately downtown or going on one of 3 extremely populated routes, and it's pretty overpriced. I kind of hate it actually and I am a long-time public transit fan. The Northwest had better (and cheaper) transit by far when I was there. It's probably because that's where all those eco-friendly hippies like to live. There's also a lot more bike lanes and provisions for cyclists in general up there in the rainy states too. I am also not a hippy as I kind of don't like the Grateful Dead and think Marijuana is stupid. I don't think the word should be considered insulting though.

over $30,000.00
Under $6000.00


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Seriously, the engine actually exploded.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Seriously, the engine actually exploded.

And seriously, buy American, buy a "foreign" car. I worked at a factory that made seats for Toyota. And oddly enough, those are something like 60% American made, where as Chevys are around 30%

Exactly.

Thing is, if you don't like non-petrol cars, don't buy one. The rest of us that don't base our egos on the amount of fuel burned by our cars will get newer cars, that aren't that expensive to run, and that'll leave more petrol for those of you that really care about that kind of stuff.



That said, like Frazzled I'm a little skeptical of electric cars, and am basically waiting for hydrogen.

The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

I like the idea of this: http://www.watertogas.com/

Instead of using Hydrogen to create electricity, use hydrogen to power your car, and emit water vapor. Rids us of a middle man (i.e. the source of Hydrogen).

The Volt is one car I will never buy, the Government can't bribe me with their $7,500 tax credit to buy it.

Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

Mike Noble wrote:The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Definitely. It might change if we look at decentralised solar power (sticking solar panels on our roofs) and using that to charge our cars, but if we're just relying on power from the local power plant then there's no point. Well, it's cheaper like you said, but the cost savings to the individual only exist because power to the home is typically subsidised, while petrol is taxed. Which across an economy is no saving at all.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, makes all kinds of sense, once we have the sustainable energy systems in place to seperate it from water.

sebster wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Definitely. It might change if we look at decentralised solar power (sticking solar panels on our roofs) and using that to charge our cars, but if we're just relying on power from the local power plant then there's no point. Well, it's cheaper like you said, but the cost savings to the individual only exist because power to the home is typically subsidised, while petrol is taxed. Which across an economy is no saving at all.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, makes all kinds of sense, once we have the sustainable energy systems in place to seperate it from water.

Look at my link, it's at a much smaller scale, but it does work.

Stormrider wrote:Look at my link, it's at a much smaller scale, but it does work.

Oh, I know it's doable right now. The point is getting it to be commercially viable then getting it actually rolled out.

I would imagine stuff like this has been kept quiet by oil companies for a while now, if something like that (Brown's Gas) became universally used by car owners in the US, the oil comapnies would be out quite a bit of money.

I like oil companies too, they employ a lot of people, they pay lots of taxes, they provide an essential service, but they are also looking out for themselves when it comes down to it, and I don't begreudge them for it.

Stormrider wrote:I would imagine stuff like this has been kept quiet by oil companies for a while now, if something like that (Brown's Gas) became universally used by car owners in the US, the oil comapnies would be out quite a bit of money.

I like oil companies too, they employ a lot of people, they pay lots of taxes, they provide an essential service, but they are also looking out for themselves when it comes down to it, and I don't begreudge them for it.

I think a lot of the conspiracy about oil companies keeping new tech secret is pretty fantastical conspiracy stuff, to be honest. Not because I believe oil companies are nice companies that only ever do good things (BP & Nigeria, anyone?) but because it's extremely difficult to shut down a new technology, especially when other, major players in the business world would benefit tremendously from such technologies (car companies, for instance).

Electricity and hydrogen cars have taken time to develop because the technology is hard to bring to market. I really think it is that simple.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but that's just my feelings about the technology and it's lack of exposure. The oil companies are not actively keeping it down, but aren't helping it either.

Stormrider wrote:I am no conspiracy theorist, but that's just my feelings about the technology and it's lack of exposure. The oil companies are not actively keeping it down, but aren't helping it either.

I certainly agree with that, companies rarely advance technology unless they stand to profit from it. Which is almost all the conceptual research goes on at the university level, and is then farmed out to companies once possible applications have become known.

sebster wrote:Thing is, if you don't like non-petrol cars, don't buy one. The rest of us that don't base our egos on the amount of fuel burned by our cars will get newer cars, that aren't that expensive to run, and that'll leave more petrol for those of you that really care about that kind of stuff.



That said, like Frazzled I'm a little skeptical of electric cars, and am basically waiting for hydrogen.

He thinks hydrogen is a viable alternative and not a political boondoggle used by the big three during the bush years to look like they were researching advanced technologies while intentionally researching a dead end.

Hydrogen research has rapidly dried up over the last few years as the truth of the uneconomical energy trail, massive infrastructure retrofit, and sheer danger of it all came to light (same with biofuels, though that one was never even close to serious in the first place). While it was failing battery research marched on thanks to rapid advances in mobile tech markets (its the same batteries in the end). All we need to do is hit an energy density comparable to gasoline within the batteries (experts think it'll come down within the next 15 years) and we're all set.

ShumaGorath wrote:Hydrogen research has rapidly dried up over the last few years as the truth of the uneconomical energy trail, massive infrastructure retrofit, and sheer danger of it all came to light (same with biofuels, though that one was never even close to serious in the first place). While it was failing battery research marched on thanks to rapid advances in mobile tech markets (its the same batteries in the end). All we need to do is hit an energy density comparable to gasoline within the batteries (experts think it'll come down within the next 15 years) and we're all set.

No, we would need to find a way to power and re-supply all those vehicles with sustainable energy, or at least energy that is no more polluting than current petrol engines. Which requires an infrastructure refit on the same scale as hydrogen. Seriously, once you consider the nuclear, solar and tidal plants that will have to be built to replace the coal plants, having a petrol station change tanker types is no big deal.

And yeah, hydrogen is a way off, because the tech isn't there to make it commercially viable at this point, but the underling efficiencies of that system are undeniable. On the other hand, electricity has managed to get affordable cars onto the roads, but it still relies on powering cars with energy that comes almost entirely from polluting energy sources.

WarOne wrote:Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

I like the cut of his jib. I'll contribute to the start-up.

Oh, and Electric Cars have been viable for a good long while, it's just that the Big Three are heavily invested in oil, so it doesn't make sense for them to sell you something that bypasses that fuel system.

Further more, if you want to be extra pissed at the big three, listen to this podcast: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi

No, we would need to find a way to power and re-supply all those vehicles with sustainable energy, or at least energy that is no more polluting than current petrol engines.

Why? It's clear that it's economics and not environmentalism that decides the prevalent energy technologies in consumer markets, and comparatively for cost a conversion to hydrogen is vastly less feasible or economical then one to pure electricity.

Which requires an infrastructure refit on the same scale as hydrogen. Seriously, once you consider the nuclear, solar and tidal plants that will have to be built to replace the coal plants, having a petrol station change tanker types is no big deal.

Who said we're switching all the old coal plants out? Hydrogen is an inefficient middle man for that energy in the first place which is the crux of the issue. Relying on a massive infrastructural overhaul to predate the adoption of a consumer technology which is predicated on an overhaul that has no function without the consumer technology adoption seems silly to me. It's like waiting for the chicken to have an egg so that you can have a chicken to hatch the egg the first chicken came from. It's circular.

And yeah, hydrogen is a way off, because the tech isn't there to make it commercially viable at this point, but the underling efficiencies of that system are undeniable.

Undeniable? Which part? The part where hydrogen energy storage is an inefficient and lossy process that creates dangerous and high maintenance fuel storage requirements, or the part where there is essentially no continuing research into the field because science has let the horse finally die now that other techs have superseded it?

On the other hand, electricity has managed to get affordable cars onto the roads, but it still relies on powering cars with energy that comes almost entirely from polluting energy sources.

That same energy grid that is fueling the hydrogen storage plants could also just travel down a wire and power cars directly via electric storage. The methodology by which the energy is generated is irrelevant in the end of line energy storage process, and right now, without further research pure electrical storage is a cleaner and safer alternative with promise of having higher energy densities in the future as well.

ShumaGorath wrote:Why? It's clear that it's economics and not environmentalism that decides the prevalent energy technologies in consumer markets, and comparatively for cost a conversion to hydrogen is vastly less feasible or economical then one to pure electricity.

Yes, it is economics, it's just that it's a bad economic model built around ignoring a key externality. With electric cars we have people charging the batteries cars with power generated largely from coal powered plants. Which in terms of emissions leaves us no better off, and probably worse off, than we'd be with petrol burning cars. If we were to invest in locally generated power such as solar panels this would change considerably, but we aren't.

In contrast, hydrogen has the primary advantage of not relying on a power network for distribution.

Who said we're switching all the old coal plants out?

It's something we have to do, and the sooner the better. That coal is an unsustainable tech for our energy generation needs is something everyone really should know by now.

Hydrogen is an inefficient middle man for that energy in the first place which is the crux of the issue. Relying on a massive infrastructural overhaul to predate the adoption of a consumer technology which is predicated on an overhaul that has no function without the consumer technology adoption seems silly to me. It's like waiting for the chicken to have an egg so that you can have a chicken to hatch the egg the first chicken came from. It's circular.

Umm, are you claiming that we can't ever build infrastructure up before demand is realised... in a thread talking about cars (which rely on roads, and use petrol stations)... in a discussion on the internet (which relies on satellite communications

And no, hydrogen is not an inefficient middle man. It's a form of energy storage. By the logic of your argument the battery in an electric car is also an inefficient middle man. Which, obviously, makes no sense, because at some point we need one form of energy capture or another.

Now you have to consider the inefficiences of producing power from coal or other source, then losing up to 70% of that in transferring it through the grid and to the home. Or you can produce the energy on site, use it turn water into hydrogen, then lose none of that energy as the hydrogen is taken to the source.

Undeniable? Which part? The part where hydrogen energy storage is an inefficient and lossy process that creates dangerous and high maintenance fuel storage requirements, or the part where there is essentially no continuing research into the field because science has let the horse finally die now that other techs have superseded it?

Umm, except research is on-going. You're confusing a few manufacturers saying they've stopped research for now as it is not viable with current tech for commercial vehicles, with research being entirely abandoned.

That same energy grid that is fueling the hydrogen storage plants could also just travel down a wire and power cars directly via electric storage. The methodology by which the energy is generated is irrelevant in the end of line energy storage process, and right now, without further research pure electrical storage is a cleaner and safer alternative with promise of having higher energy densities in the future as well.

Except you lose up to 70% of the power. Now, when you look at something like solar power, it makes no commercial sense, and likely never will, to have large vats of solar power creating energy then putting it in the network, only to see most of it disappear before it reaches the household. But if you consider that same solar plant, located next to a fresh water source, or next to an ocean and a desalination plant, using the energy created to produce hydrogen, then that hydrogen being transported at no loss, regardless of the distance travelled.

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

Maybe batteries could be recycled, like in Europe.

Yes, it is economics, it's just that it's a bad economic model built around ignoring a key externality. With electric cars we have people charging the batteries cars with power generated largely from coal powered plants. Which in terms of emissions leaves us no better off, and probably worse off, than we'd be with petrol burning cars. If we were to invest in locally generated power such as solar panels this would change considerably, but we aren't.

In contrast, hydrogen has the primary advantage of not relying on a power network for distribution.

Except it does. Hydrogen is created and stored via an electrolytic process that requires significantly more energy then is actually stored within the hydrogen itself. This is a key factor that you seem to be missing, you still need that exact same infrastructure for hydrogen. The hydrogen storage is a direct result from a very power intensive process. It is that exact process that makes it unworthy as an energy storage medium in consumer vehicles. It's no better then gasoline, as right now the production of hydrogen for fuel uses more gasoline energy then the end result hydrogen gives. It's lossy.

It's something we have to do, and the sooner the better. That coal is an unsustainable tech for our energy generation needs is something everyone really should know by now.

Coal isn't unsustainable. There are massive coal reserves in almost every country on the planet. We have a nigh infinite amount of it to use. It's not particularly environmentally friendly, but sustainability is not equivalent to environmentally friendly.

Umm, are you claiming that we can't ever build infrastructure up before demand is realised... in a thread talking about cars (which rely on roads, and use petrol stations)... in a discussion on the internet (which relies on satellite communications

Roads existed before cars because cart pathways were roads. Roads have existed for thousands of years. The internet does not require satellite communications. In fact the vast vast majority of internet traffic never sees a satellite. Radio satellites don't have that kind of bandwidth. These are bad comparisons.

And no, hydrogen is not an inefficient middle man. It's a form of energy storage.

Yes. Storage is a middleman. Hydrogen happens to be one that has time and time again been proven to be inefficient for all but pure energy density.

By the logic of your argument the battery in an electric car is also an inefficient middle man. Which, obviously, makes no sense, because at some point we need one form of energy capture or another.

It's a more efficient middleman because there is far less energy loss in a li-on battery stack plugged into the grid then there is in the capture, storage, and transport of hydrogen. One is plug and play, the other requires moving parts and sizable facilities (that do not yet exist) before it ever interacts with the car.

Now you have to consider the inefficiences of producing power from coal or other source, then losing up to 70% of that in transferring it through the grid and to the home. Or you can produce the energy on site, use it turn water into hydrogen, then lose none of that energy as the hydrogen is taken to the source.

This is a fallacious argument. That same local energy storage method could be used to power pure electric battery cars. It's exactly the same. The only difference is the storage tech and the tech required to convert that power. With batteries no tech is really required to convert to storage with hydrogen largescale, dangerous, and inefficient equipment is required to go from solar panels to fuel cells. That is the simplest difference, one has a middleman, the other doesn't. Whatever your power source is is irrelevant.

Umm, except research is on-going. You're confusing a few manufacturers saying they've stopped research for now as it is not viable with current tech for commercial vehicles, with research being entirely abandoned.

No I'm just comparing pre and post 2008 research funding at a national level.

Except you lose up to 70% of the power. Now, when you look at something like solar power, it makes no commercial sense, and likely never will, to have large vats of solar power creating energy then putting it in the network, only to see most of it disappear before it reaches the household. But if you consider that same solar plant, located next to a fresh water source, or next to an ocean and a desalination plant, using the energy created to produce hydrogen, then that hydrogen being transported at no loss, regardless of the distance travelled.

I don't understand how you are teleporting the hydrogen to its destination. How is it a lossless process to use energy in a lossy process to create and store hydrogen, which requires energy to keep stored (remember, it has to be cold) and then you have to transport it to refueling stations, where it then has to be stored (and kept cold) before being placed in cars where it then has to be kept cold as it is being used. It is not a "no loss" process. It's not even close.

Hydrogen has been called one of the least efficient and most expensive possible replacements for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases; other technologies may be less expensive and more quickly implemented.[42][43] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[4] The Ford Motor Company has dropped its plans to develop hydrogen cars, stating that "The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles".[44]
An accounting of the energy utilized during a thermodynamic process, known as an energy balance, can be applied to automotive fuels. With today's technology, the manufacture of hydrogen via steam reforming can be accomplished with a thermal efficiency of 75 to 80 percent. Additional energy will be required to liquefy or compress the hydrogen, and to transport it to the filling station via truck or pipeline. The energy that must be utilized per kilogram to produce, transport and deliver hydrogen (i.e., its well-to-tank energy use) is approximately 50 megajoules using technology available in 2004. Subtracting this energy from the enthalpy of one kilogram of hydrogen, which is 141 megajoules, and dividing by the enthalpy, yields a thermal energy efficiency of roughly 60%.[45] Gasoline, by comparison, requires less energy input, per gallon, at the refinery, and comparatively little energy is required to transport it and store it owing to its high energy density per gallon at ambient temperatures. Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80% efficient (Wang, 2002). The most efficient distribution however is electrical, which is typically 95% efficient. Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Your arguments for efficiency are totally bunk.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I was referring to its name. THE LEAF!!!

I like hydrogen power, however it has to be pointed out that electric has various advantages.

1. Whatever the generation source, the electricity is all just electricity.

2. The national infrastructure for electricity distribution is in place, right to the consumer's home.

3. It saves a conversion stage of the cycle of Power to electricity / electricity to hydrogen / hydrogen to power.

The main downside of electric is that it is impossible to recharge a battery very quickly, whereas you can refill your fuel tank in a couple of minutes.

You could get round this by providing quick-change batteries. Car manufacturers would need to make their batteries standardised and compatible. Each battery would need a chip to record its charge/discharge life.

You would drive into the garage, and swap your mostly discharged batteries for fully charged, paying a fee based on the amount of electricity and the relative lifetime of the batteries.