Printable View
As a second car/run around/daily commuter they are ideal - particularly if you have rooftop solar and batteries already so charging is cheap (I won't say free because the solar and batteries are bloody expensive). This is where the marketing should be targeted to help overcome things like range anxiety and towing capacities, etc. Start out advertising what they can do, not what they *may* be able to do in a few years/decades time.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_D4
I see Ford has temporarily closed orders for the F-150 Lightening because, despite boosting production 4 times, it is unable to keep up with the demand.
Nice looking vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Biggest hurdle - spending that much “to save money” isn’t viable. And the emissions from buying another vehicle well exceed what you’ll generate on the current one.
People tend to change for changes sake and I fully get that.
Heck did it for decades, new car every 12 months and then every 3 years, now can’t be bothered more fun things to spend money on.
Current EVs are great for - people who don’t have a decent vehicle atm. Want a vehicle that never intends to tow or leave the principal area of its residence or take journeys beyond its range in a timely manner.
Just getting one to be green / cheap is neither.
Tesla outsells the Toyota LandCruiser, Corolla and popular utes | Daily Mail Online
Ev's are fine for those that they suit,but they shouldnt be forced on those that they dont suit for whatever reason.
A bit off topic,but seems the timeline for E buses has grown.No surprise there,its going to happen for Ev's in many places as well.
NSW government delays delivering electric bus fleet by at least five years - ABC News
No doubt 5yrs will become 10,and on it goes,that is if it ever happens.
OZ is slow which is to be expected. The 12 Alstom Coradia LINT trains in Germany are a starting point. My sad sack view is HZR in Perth and Spare Nuclear or wind or solar via hydrogen electrolysis to save excess power at time which is currently wasted will make Full Cell tech like those trains cheap to run. More than happy to bet I will have a Hydrogen fuel cell in use at work and hopefully in my boat in the next few years. Money meets mouth I hope :)Quote:
Originally Posted by scarry
A company in Canada is supplying the fuel cells in some other hydrogen trains
The F150 is not on my shopping list unless I can put a nice fuel Cell generator in the back when I want to go a Long way.[bigwhistle]
Maybe you could put a 10kva diesel generator in the back to power the batteries?Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyDiver
The problem is the current round-trip efficiency. This quotes ~35% : https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...nev_2019_p.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by NavyDiver
That's a bit pessimistic, as I've seen it quoted as high as 38%. Even one un-referenced report indicated almost as high as 40%! Pumped Hydro defecates on it from a great height as far as round trip efficiency.
We currently don't have enough space for the cells and wind turbines required to replace our existing fossil fuel power sources, let alone the 2.5x that would be required if we had to rely on Hydrogen for storage. "Cheap to run" becomes relative.
Now, if we were talking loads of power from small packages, say Nuclear, then it becomes slightly more feasible. But these twonks suggesting "green and renewable" sources are going to save the planet based on electrolysis and fuel cells are not looking at the whole picture. They're only "green and renewable" if you ignore the fact they have a limited life, can't be recycled and in the case of wind still won't produce in the lifetime of a turbine the energy required to make, install and maintain the thing. Solar eventually crossed that bridge, but it also doesn't require yearly oil changes (and the oil isn't either "green", nor "renewable") and routine maintenance, let alone the earth works required to install it, and then replace it when its design life has expired.
Heck, if it wasn't for the fact nobody has figured out how to recycle them yet, even lithium batteries are more than twice as efficient as Hydrogen currently. The big limitation is there is an inherent physical limitation that says the Hydrogen round trip efficiency (electrolysis -> fuel cell) will never approach a battery in that oxygen doesn't make electricity, so over a third (and closer to a half) of the power used to split water goes "out the pipe" so to speak.
Batteries are a short term solution to a long term problem. Wind isn't the answer until we learn to harness it in a manner that makes more power than it consumes. Solar certainly has potential, but we need storage that is efficient. Right now, pumped hydro is where it's at. Hydrogen *might* be useful on it's own, but the probability is it'll be more useful making synthetic liquid hydrocarbon, but only if we can accept it'll never actually be "efficient".
We still use Gas to prop up the "renewables", because they are inherently unreliable. Hydrogen isn't the answer to that, unless you want to overprovision the "renewables" to the point of lunacy. We need something better. I don't have the answer, but if Greta can address the UN with nothing other than teenage angst and rage whilst providing zero constructive input, then I can state the problems without providing any solutions either.
I know that's tongue in cheek but running that flat out would take 10 hours to charge it - so it can drive another hour and half down the road. [biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by John_D4
That’s an easy fix…you just need a mine sized generator and you’ll need to run it full time while tire driving. Problem solved!Quote:
Originally Posted by Homestar
I should apply for a job with the EPA!