The future of electric vs gas powered vehicles

[Hammer Smokin']

4 hours ago, Colt45 said:

We shouldn't, I think - spent fuel is no joke. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. To the main point of discussion, I've no problem with non combustion engine vehicles. On a side note as has been broached already, there is a real problem with "technology" putting people out of work.....

Well, through my experience, at least currently, I see no solution to move away from base line power production of nuclear.

But you are correct. With the current spent waste, we are kinda robbing peter to pay paul. I just am not aware of any alternate solutions. I'm very sure they are out there, and are likely being worked on, but nuclear is the area with my most minimal involvement.

Having a hand in all other forms of power production, carbon based, or renewable, even the biggest tree huggers admit nuclear is a must to keep a healthy power grid functioning.

Bruce Nuclear here in Ontario is a pretty good example of a well run nuclear facility. Much better than the government run Ontario Power Generation facilities. And for the most part, they pay better than coal or gas based facilities, so workers contribute strongly to all three levels of government.

While I'm all for moving away from carbon based power production, at this time, in order to do so, nuclear is more important than ever.

 

[Kitchen]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:24 AM, El Presidente said:

Di has had her solar panels for 14 years. 

She did get a bill last quarter for household electricity. It was 45 cents .

If she could store the power she generates (as opposed to putting it back in the grid), she would be self sufficient in terms of power and that includes an EV. 

maintenance cost of the solar system over 14 years is $0.  Warranty, 25 years. 

 

Although for residential, I could see this being the case, but how much energy do you really use at home when you are away a 1/3 of the day.  

How about for commercial uses and manufacturing?  I don't know the statistic, but how much more energy is used in manufacturing compared to residential usage?  

[Kitchen]

13 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

I don't think solar, hydro and wind will go away any time soon, I believe we will see all these industries grow for several decades. As someone posted earlier, the biggest challenge is storing the energy, and that tech will only get better.

Unfortunately nuclear power gets a bad reputation, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Early reactors used fuel rods, which was a rushed and very bad and inefficient wasteful early design, and ultimately died in highly publicised melt-downs, i.e. Chernobyl, 3-mile Island, Fukushima. The Oil companies seized on these mistakes to lobby for and enact moratoriums and once they had successfully killed off nuclear, they systematically bought out the nuclear plants and much of the tech for pennies, and diligently kept it from becoming a competitive threat to oil. But fuel rods and light-water reactors were outmoded about 50 years ago by molten salt reactors, fuel orbs and other better designs, which pose no threat of meltdown. These modern reactors use up over 95% of the fuel and generate 700+ percent more power than light-water reactors, but because of the moratoriums they can't be built here. Another plus is modern reactors, such as molten salt reactors, can actually run on the spent fuel from other types of reactors, so there is a lot of available fuel already. 

Sadly, this technology will likely be developed in China and other parts of the world, before it gets approved in the U.S., so the U.S. is in danger of losing the energy race, mostly because of the greed of the oil industry. 

Interesting read, reminds me of the car companies buying all of the public transportation lines in West Coast cities back in the 30s and 40s and shutting them down.  Great for the car companies, but ... 

I was aware of the other technologies and different types of reactors that are currently being worked on, but I do have hope that we will eventually let nuclear take off again.  

[Philc2001]

Although for residential, I could see this being the case, but how much energy do you really use at home when you are away a 1/3 of the day.  
How about for commercial uses and manufacturing?  I don't know the statistic, but how much more energy is used in manufacturing compared to residential usage?  

It’s not just residential, a lot of companies are going green and generating their own renewable energy.

A former company I worked for built a solar array on the roof of their facility in Georgia made by Solyndra before the company went bust. The cylindrical panels work very, very well. The array is not very big, but it generates over 80% of the power they use for operating the entire plant. We had monitors throughout the company that showed how many GWs of power they had made, and how much money they saved. It was very impressive.

When Solyndra went bankrupt our site foreman was able to buy out excess parts on eBay at pennies on the dollar, and they have enough spare parts to keep the array going for decades, but the darn thing doesn’t seem to ever break down. It’s a shame they shut down, they had a really great product.

More recently, I believe Google, Facebook and Apple have all moved off the grid and are 100% using their own renewable energy, and I believe they even sell energy back to the grid. Other companies are doing it too. It makes sense, the companies can tout they are green, and they save lots on their utility bills. I think businesses have a lot to gain, more so than residential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bpm32]

4 hours ago, Kitchen said:

Interesting read, reminds me of the car companies buying all of the public transportation lines in West Coast cities back in the 30s and 40s and shutting them down.  Great for the car companies, but ... 

I was aware of the other technologies and different types of reactors that are currently being worked on, but I do have hope that we will eventually let nuclear take off again.  

Yeah, I remember when I was a kid in a museum in WA being shocked to see old pictures of street cars even in fairly suburban areas. In the 1980s/90s West Coast types wouldn’t be caught dead on the bus. The underground sections of the bus lines in Seattle were free to get people to actually ride them.

[El Presidente]

Great discussion. Well done all 

[Fuzz]

On 4/13/2019 at 4:24 PM, El Presidente said:

Di has had her solar panels for 14 years. 

She did get a bill last quarter for household electricity. It was 45 cents .

If she could store the power she generates (as opposed to putting it back in the grid), she would be self sufficient in terms of power and that includes an EV. 

maintenance cost of the solar system over 14 years is $0.  Warranty, 25 years. 

 

I put in a 5.4kw PV system (30x180w panels) back in 2009. Cost me about $20k, and due to govt rebates, I paid off the system in 6 years. There has been zero maintenance cost since installation. The panels have only been washed once, and that was because I took down the panels to repaint my roof.

I would love to get a battery to go off-grid, but the cost is still expensive for what I want (at least $15k). Between Oct to March, I usually generate 25-36kWh per day (depending on weather). Planning on replacing the current panels with more efficient ones (Sunpower Maxeon 400w), and also get another inverter (I like SMA inverters).

[helix]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:53 PM, Kitchen said:

I look at EVs the same way I look at wind and solar electricity, a new fad that everyone is jumping onto that really is not practical in the long term.  Some countries may decided to force feed us EVs, along with wind and solar, but ultimately, after some suffering, we will abandon them and go with something more practical.  

As was pointed out before, one of the main disadvantages of EVs is that they require rare earth elements.  This requires a significant amount of mining, and mining has never been clean by any stretch.  The lack of cleanliness of mining is not going to change, and therefore, EVs may ultimately be worse for the environment then gas powered vehicles.  

The other great downside of EVs is that they need to be charged, and this does not happen in less than a minute (the amount of time it takes to fill up my gas tank).  I just dont see the average consumer ever putting up with this in the long run.  Maybe for a bit, but eventually everyone will be looking back to the good old times of just filling up your tank in a jiffy.  

Furthermore, EVs just don't provide the amount of power required for heavy work, like in construction.  Diesel engines will always be in need, perhaps run by natural oils instead of petroleum, and that will be in great competition with EVs.  Plus if we do find a way to harvest large amounts of natural oils for diesel engines to run on, considering the mining needed for EVs, diesels of the future would be much better for the environment.  

I read a while back that algae produces so much oil and grows essentially anywhere, that if we figured out how to effectively harvest the oils, we would be set with transportation fuel.  

https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/why-toyota-is-doubling-down-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-for-its-future

[Kitchen]

35 minutes ago, helix said:

https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/why-toyota-is-doubling-down-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-for-its-future

Now this could actually work!

Consumers vote with their money on convenience, and there is nothing convenient about needing to charge your car and then waiting a couple of hours until you can drive it again.  Filling up a tank in less then a minute and being back on the road, that's convenience.  

Most people don't realize this, but battery powered cars were invented prior to gasoline ones.  They went away for the same reasons, people would rather spend a minute filling up their car then a few hours recharging it.  History will repeat itself.  

“If you build up consumer demand solely based on how many thousands of dollars the government can give you to encourage you to buy a [product], that to me doesn’t sound like a terribly sustainable business model.”  Personally my favorite line in the article.  

[Fuzz]

Unfortunately, I do not see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being the way to go in the near future. Yes, hydrogen is the most abundant element, but the energy required to collect and convert into a usable fuel is enormous. The majority of hydrogen production comes from natural gas and oil. Unfortunately, using natural gas to produce hydrogen, also produces copious amount of greenhouse gases.

Clean methods of hydrogen production have yet to produce sizeable quantities at reasonable costs. If we are all to migrate to hydrogen fuel cells, cheap and efficient methods of hydrogen production are necessary.

[Lotusguy]

Now this could actually work!
Consumers vote with their money on convenience, and there is nothing convenient about needing to charge your car and then waiting a couple of hours until you can drive it again.  Filling up a tank in less then a minute and being back on the road, that's convenience.  
Most people don't realize this, but battery powered cars were invented prior to gasoline ones.  They went away for the same reasons, people would rather spend a minute filling up their car then a few hours recharging it.  History will repeat itself.  
“If you build up consumer demand solely based on how many thousands of dollars the government can give you to encourage you to buy a [product], that to me doesn’t sound like a terribly sustainable business model.”  Personally my favorite line in the article.  

Get real - nobody fills their tank in less than a minute. My Range Rover takes at the very least 5 minutes and that’s not counting the inevitable wait time at the cheaper gas stations. Modern EV charging stations can do 80% or more of capacity in less than 30 minutes and will soon be down to 15 - two hours was years ago.

[CaptainQuintero]

  The two hard limits seem to be price, which will eventually come down, and like others have said; charging and the associated tech.

  If you can drive up to a station, unplug your empty battery and swap it for a fully charged one from a big bank of ready to go ones and simply drive off, plus the ability to keep a spare in the back then the sky is the limit. It would be as fast as going in to buy a snack.

[Hookmaker]

15 hours ago, Kitchen said:

Although for residential, I could see this being the case, but how much energy do you really use at home when you are away a 1/3 of the day.  

How about for commercial uses and manufacturing?  I don't know the statistic, but how much more energy is used in manufacturing compared to residential usage?  

A lot! Just saw a study showing German industrial giant BASF has a daily electrical consumption same size as the whole of Denmark!!??

[Hookmaker]

6 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I put in a 5.4kw PV system (30x180w panels) back in 2009. Cost me about $20k, and due to govt rebates, I paid off the system in 6 years. There has been zero maintenance cost since installation. The panels have only been washed once, and that was because I took down the panels to repaint my roof.

I would love to get a battery to go off-grid, but the cost is still expensive for what I want (at least $15k). Between Oct to March, I usually generate 25-36kWh per day (depending on weather). Planning on replacing the current panels with more efficient ones (Sunpower Maxeon 400w), and also get another inverter (I like SMA inverters).

I’ve seen quite a lot of US guys that have bought salvaged Tesla 85kwh batteries to install at home for storing solar/wind turbine power.

[Hookmaker]

1 hour ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  The two hard limits seem to be price, which will eventually come down, and like others have said; charging and the associated tech.

  If you can drive up to a station, unplug your empty battery and swap it for a fully charged one from a big bank of ready to go ones and simply drive off, plus the ability to keep a spare in the back then the sky is the limit. It would be as fast as going in to buy a snack.

Battery swap is the future, it takes tesla less than 3 minutes, shorter time than to fill a 60 l tank. Find it on YouTube. However, this requires a certain mass of cars on the street to be a viable solution and we’re not there yet. 

[helix]

8 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Unfortunately, I do not see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being the way to go in the near future. Yes, hydrogen is the most abundant element, but the energy required to collect and convert into a usable fuel is enormous. The majority of hydrogen production comes from natural gas and oil. Unfortunately, using natural gas to produce hydrogen, also produces copious amount of greenhouse gases.

Clean methods of hydrogen production have yet to produce sizeable quantities at reasonable costs. If we are all to migrate to hydrogen fuel cells, cheap and efficient methods of hydrogen production are necessary.

HFC is more suitable to North America especially for larger vehicles like trucks and buses. Hydro electric power in North America will be able to produce cheap clean hydrogen. 

[Kitchen]

8 hours ago, Lotusguy said:

Get real - nobody fills their tank in less than a minute. My Range Rover takes at the very least 5 minutes and that’s not counting the inevitable wait time at the cheaper gas stations. Modern EV charging stations can do 80% or more of capacity in less than 30 minutes and will soon be down to 15 - two hours was years ago.

Okay, so maybe a minute was a little fast, but 5 minute is still better then a couple hours.  FYI, I just looked this up on the car review site: 

"A typical electric car (60kWh battery) takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point."  And this:

"Tesla Supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two adjacent cars, with a maximum of 120 kW per car. That is up to 16 times as fast as public charging stations; they take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%."

5 minutes to fuel your tank to 100% or 75 minutes to fully charge the battery, what will people pick when given the option?  ?  

Even the 20 minute charge will be annoying to most people.  I mean really, we have apps that allow you to order your coffee in advance so you don't have to wait in line.  Do you really think, given the option, people will pick a vehicle that takes 15 times longer to completely refuel.  

Plus, if it takes that much longer to charge the battery, it will produce a queue substantially longer in wait time than what we deal with today with our gasoline stations.  (As as an aside, I studied queuing theory in college and can tell you the relationship between service time and wait time is not linear.  As service time increases, wait time increases logarithmically.)  This will make the decision even easier for most consumers.  Now before you say, just quadruple the amount of fueling stations, doing so would add in additional costs in land resources and infrastructure, in addition to spending 4 times more for the physical refueling stations.    

Additionally, and I am basing this off of highway studies, but I would guess the more recharging stations you have the more likely people would pick those, over charging at home, which would make the issue even worse.  (With highways, it has been shown that widening a highway actually increases traffic since more people are likely to choose that route, thinking the increase in width will make the commute faster, essentially negating any time savings with the additional lane(s).  It's an interesting paradox.)  

Also, aren't trickle charges better for the life of your battery, and produce a longer lasting charge?  I have read that slow charging is always better, and a fast charging will shorten the service life of any battery. 

Battery powered EVs becoming standard ain't going to happen, at least not in the long run.  Cars with a liquid or gas fuel source is where it will always be.  EVs may become somewhat popular while we wait out innovation. 

PS. people would also have to mentally deal with the uncertainty of how long the actual wait time is at recharging stations.  What I mean by this is, that if it takes anywhere from 20 to 75 minutes to recharge and all charging ports are in use when you arrive, you have no idea if most are choosing the 20 minute charge or if most are choosing the 75 minute charge.  So you have no idea when one of those ports will open up.  At any other station, if all pumps are being used, you know, worse case scenario, one will open in less than 5 minutes.  I doubt most will choose to deal with this uncertainty, especially considering it will create a lot of stress if one has a schedule to keep.  

[Hookmaker]

Well, the fact of the matter is, that most (way > 90%) need no tank of fuel or electrons to drive more than 130 miles a day - and that's a lot of driving). So for that amount of driving most people are suited with home charging over night. More range and Superchargers are for long distance driving. I find that a 30 min break for each 250 km's of driving down the Autobahn from Denmark to Italy is a welcoming thing. 

Anyways, as i said above this will go away once the mass of cars is big enough to allow for investment in battery exchange technology. Then it takes only this long (start at 1:00):

      

[Kitchen]

30 seconds of the gas refueling was dedicated to payment, however no payment was collected with the battery swap.  I cant see payment processing be any faster with battery swaps compared to traditional refueling.  Unless this is covered in the cost of the car, but I doubt that would be a long term viable option since there would be some that would greatly abuse it. Any anyway, there would need to be some kind of digital accounting and tracking for the swap out that would take some seconds to complete.  

So the time it took to swap the first car batter was 1:30.  

If you take away the processing time, the gas took about 3:30.  Although this is longer by a little more than double, you have to take into account the pump shows 23.22 gallons being pumped.  (I find this kind of odd since the A8 has at most a 21.7 gallon tank, and the tank sizes just keep on shrinking on Audi A Series cars from there.  Where are those extra gallons going?)  Average tank size is just half that anyway, so the actual time would be similar, for the most part.  

I will contest that if this was actually implemented, it would certainly make battery powered EVs more attractive.  

Food for thought though: 

How many additional batteries per car need to be manufactured and then stored and charged to make this refueling system run smoothly?  I would guess at least two, in addition to the one already in the car.  One charged and ready to go, while another being charged as a backup.  Will batteries come down enough in price to justify including the cost of three of them in a single car purchase to the average consumer?  

If the main attraction to battery EVs is helping save the environment, isn't producing this many more batteries going to do more damage from the increase in mining?  

Additionally, what is the cost of land and infrastructure to store all of these extra batteries?  

If a much better connection was invented after this was implemented on a large scale (not unlikely; look at all the different computer ports was have gone through), would companies be willing to spend the money to transform all of the stations and batteries to the newer connection?  Or would we just have to deal with an outdated connection for an extended period of time due to an unwillingness to loose already invested capital in the older style?  

Will all cars have the same style battery, shape, power supply, voltage and wattage, connectors, etc?  

If not, will the same refueling stations be able to replace all styles of batteries? What kind of storage and recharging facilities will they need in this situation?  I am assuming a fairly large facility would be needed; how will that take up land resources and infrastructure?  

Or will be we need multiple stations that are only dedicated to one, maybe two, brands of vehicles?  If so, how is this going to effect land resources?  

I am not saying these are obstacles that can not be overcome, but questions that certainly need to be considered.  

[Philc2001]

1 hour ago, Kitchen said:

30 seconds of the gas refueling was dedicated to payment, however no payment was collected with the battery swap.  I cant see payment processing be any faster with battery swaps compared to traditional refueling.  Unless this is covered in the cost of the car, but I doubt that would be a long term viable option since there would be some that would greatly abuse it. Any anyway, there would need to be some kind of digital accounting and tracking for the swap out that would take some seconds to complete.  

So the time it took to swap the first car batter was 1:30.  

If you take away the processing time, the gas took about 3:30.  Although this is longer by a little more than double, you have to take into account the pump shows 24 gallons being pumped.  (I find this kind of odd since the A8 has at most a 21.7 gallon tank, and the tank sizes just keep on shrinking on Audi A Series cars from there.  Where are those extra gallons going?)  Average tank size is just half that anyway, so the actual time would be similar, for the most part.  

I will contest that if this was actually implemented, it would certainly make battery powered EVs more attractive.  

Food for thought though: 

How many additional batteries per car need to be manufactured and then stored and charged to make this refueling system run smoothly?  I would guess at least two, in addition to the one already in the car.  One charged and ready to go, while another being charged as a backup.  Will batteries come down enough in price to justify including the cost of three of them in a single car purchase to the average consumer?  

If the main attraction to battery EVs is helping save the environment, isn't producing this many more batteries going to do more damage from the increase in mining?  

Additionally, what is the cost of land and infrastructure to store all of these extra batteries?  

If a much better connection was invented after this was implemented on a large scale (not unlikely; look at all the different computer ports was have gone through), would companies be willing to spend the money to transform all of the stations and batteries to the newer connection?  Or would we just have to deal with an outdated connection for an extended period of time due to an unwillingness to loose already invested capital in the older style?  

Will all cars have the same style battery, shape, power supply, voltage and wattage, connectors, etc?  

If not, will the same refueling stations be able to replace all styles of batteries? What kind of storage and recharging facilities will they need in this situation?  I am assuming a fairly large facility would be needed; how will that take up land resources and infrastructure?  

Or will be we need multiple stations that are only dedicated to one, maybe two, brands of vehicles?  If so, how is this going to effect land resources?  

I am not saying these are obstacles that can not be overcome, but questions that certainly need to be considered.  

Obviously this was a marketing gimmick video for Tesla, so they took some liberties. I'm sure if they get popular enough at some point they may get to be a basic drive-up and drive off experience, but that seems rather far off at the moment. I have barely seen any Tesla charging stations aside from the one about 2 miles from my house at the Whole Foods store, let alone a battery swap station. I don't quite see how Tesla will ever erect these swap stations without having to purchase or lease the real estate for it, so I don't think there will be very many of them around any time soon. But if we suppose Tesla solves these challenges, then you would still need to find these stations in sufficient numbers and conveniently located on your route. That too may take several years from now.

By contrast, my A4 takes about 12-13 gals when I fill it from 1/8 tank. On a full tank I get about 375 miles (to get to 1/8 tank) of fast and aggressive driving, or 400 of normal driving. More importantly, I can stop for gas just about anywhere, including at virtually any highway plaza, and nearly every other street corner, so I can literally drive it until my fuel warning light illuminates and not worry about running out of fuel. It will take a while before Tesla gets to this level of access and convenience.

However, despite all that, Teslas are usually purchased by those relatively well healed and likely their Tesla is not their only household vehicle. I would estimate for more than 95% of people their total daily commute is under 200 miles, including their drive to work, a trip to the grocery store and out to dinner after work. That is right within the Tesla sweetspot. Granted, for the weekend drive where you're pushing past 100 miles (one-way) it takes some careful planning and some delays to make sure you get to where you are going without your battery draining. But those are the exceptions not the norm.

There are also plug-in and regular hybrids that take advantage of electric but still give you the convenience of gasoline power when you need it. Seems like a fair improvement over purely battery, or purely gasoline, doesn't it.

[Shelby07]

55 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

30 seconds of the gas refueling was dedicated to payment, however no payment was collected with the battery swap.  I cant see payment processing be any faster with battery swaps compared to traditional refueling.  Unless this is covered in the cost of the car, but I doubt that would be a long term viable option since there would be some that would greatly abuse it. Any anyway, there would need to be some kind of digital accounting and tracking for the swap out that would take some seconds to complete.  

So the time it took to swap the first car batter was 1:30.  

If you take away the processing time, the gas took about 3:30.  Although this is longer by a little more than double, you have to take into account the pump shows 23.22 gallons being pumped.  (I find this kind of odd since the A8 has at most a 21.7 gallon tank, and the tank sizes just keep on shrinking on Audi A Series cars from there.  Where are those extra gallons going?)  Average tank size is just half that anyway, so the actual time would be similar, for the most part.  

I will contest that if this was actually implemented, it would certainly make battery powered EVs more attractive.  

Food for thought though: 

How many additional batteries per car need to be manufactured and then stored and charged to make this refueling system run smoothly?  I would guess at least two, in addition to the one already in the car.  One charged and ready to go, while another being charged as a backup.  Will batteries come down enough in price to justify including the cost of three of them in a single car purchase to the average consumer?  

If the main attraction to battery EVs is helping save the environment, isn't producing this many more batteries going to do more damage from the increase in mining?  

Additionally, what is the cost of land and infrastructure to store all of these extra batteries?  

If a much better connection was invented after this was implemented on a large scale (not unlikely; look at all the different computer ports was have gone through), would companies be willing to spend the money to transform all of the stations and batteries to the newer connection?  Or would we just have to deal with an outdated connection for an extended period of time due to an unwillingness to loose already invested capital in the older style?  

Will all cars have the same style battery, shape, power supply, voltage and wattage, connectors, etc?  

If not, will the same refueling stations be able to replace all styles of batteries? What kind of storage and recharging facilities will they need in this situation?  I am assuming a fairly large facility would be needed; how will that take up land resources and infrastructure?  

Or will be we need multiple stations that are only dedicated to one, maybe two, brands of vehicles?  If so, how is this going to effect land resources?  

I am not saying these are obstacles that can not be overcome, but questions that certainly need to be considered.  

I think your estimate of the number of spare batteries that will be needed is much too high. Remember that only a small percentage of cars will be replacing batteries at a given time. Most will be recharged at homes or recharging stations. The only reason to replace the pack when you’re on the road is if someone is on a long trip and needs to refuel quickly. And even today the (Tesla) supercharging stations can provide about 180 mile range in about 30 minutes and that should be improved with newer technology. So I see battery replacement as a supplemental process, not an everyday one. 

[helix]

Both battery and hydrogen EV's will be around in the future, but the better ( accessible , doable )  alternative fuel most likely will be hydrogen. Toyota thinks so.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hydrogen+vs+electric+cars&view=detail&mid=7148CDAD837DE884291E7148CDAD837DE884291E&FORM=VIRE

"The world’s leading automaker is betting big on hydrogen . Of the nine million hybrids that have been sold since the Prius first hit the market in 1997, more than eight million were built by Toyota, the Prius alone outselling all other EVs, hybrids and plug-ins combined by a factor of three to one. So, when Toyota says it will sell 30,000 hydrogen-powered cars a year by 2020, it’s time the entire automotive industry started taking hydrogen seriously.. "

[Philc2001]

1 minute ago, helix said:

Both battery and hydrogen EV's will be around in the future, but the better ( accessible , doable )  alternative fuel most likely will be hydrogen. Toyota thinks so.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hydrogen+vs+electric+cars&view=detail&mid=7148CDAD837DE884291E7148CDAD837DE884291E&FORM=VIRE

"The world’s leading automaker is betting big on hydrogen . Of the nine million hybrids that have been sold since the Prius first hit the market in 1997, more than eight million were built by Toyota, the Prius alone outselling all other EVs, hybrids and plug-ins combined by a factor of three to one. So, when Toyota says it will sell 30,000 hydrogen-powered cars a year by 2020, it’s time the entire automotive industry started taking hydrogen seriously.. "

Yep, agreed. Toyota was the car company I was affiliated with, and they are very well funded and determined to make hydrogen work. 

[helix]

Plus James May says so !

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hydrogen+vs+electric+cars&&view=detail&mid=3AF27DA319FA876660223AF27DA319FA87666022&&FORM=VDRVRV

[Philc2001]

One of the interesting ideas I remember reading about is that with the abundance of hydrogen in the world, if we ever find a way to easily harness hydrogen it would effectively become a self sustaining power source, which would ultimately put the energy companies, as we know them today, out of business. Some years ago Honda developed a whole-home hydrogen generator that produces enough power to run the entire home, including electric heating and cooling, and charge your electric car, and have lots to spare. It was all fully contained, it used water as the fuel, and the whole thing was about the size of a typical household water heater. Unfortunately, the cost was prohibitive at $1 million. But the concept was awesome.

Now, if we could get a hydrogen generator to run our household on, that would take you completely off the grid, with zero emissions, and could be powered on just plain water, what would that be worth to you? Just quick napkin math tells me I spend about $42K in hydro bills in a 10-year period, so if the generator was built into the home and provided all the power I could ever use, wouldn't you pay say $100k for it with a 25-year warranty?