Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

Lowell_Greenberg said:
Quoting myself:) And then there is hydrogen- the most plentiful element in the Universe and an alternative energy contender. Musk derides source this- probably more from selfish than enlightened self-interest- but the rest of the automotive industry seems to feel otherwise.

The automobile itself should die- and public transportation is the only truly environmentally responsible mode of transportation. But it may be a very slow and agonizing death given how dependent the US is on the automobile and how environmentally destructive it is. Indeed, the concept of a disruptor applies not only to the corporate marketplace, but countries and other organizational structures. And the US is ripe for disruption.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The "hydrogen economy" is nothing but a confidence game, a hoax perpetrated by Big Oil and its shills, intended as a distraction from the real EV revolution, which is battery-electric cars. Elon Musk has a degree in physics, and physicists were pointing out the impossibility of practical hydrogen-powered cars long before Elon coined the very apt phrase "fool cell cars". Elon's opinion of hydrogen-powered FCEVs has everything to do with reality, physics, science, and basic economics (EROI, or Energy Return On Investment), and nothing at all to do with any hypothetical competition with Tesla Inc. It's not possible for fool cell cars to ever compete with Tesla; they can't even compete with gasmobiles!

No need to yet again go through all the facts and figures proving the impracticality of trying to use hydrogen as an everyday transportation fuel; just see the thread I started here. All the facts, science, and solidly founded reasons are laid out in detail in the first two posts, with plenty of citations and links to authoritative sources.

This really is a settled matter, despite a shrinking number of science-denying Big Oil shills continuing to claim otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu As usual we have lots to disagree on. I won't reiterate my previous arguments that Tesla will be the one to fall, and not the existing auto industry, except to say that fair or not, disruptors are often not the winners in the end. Another common fate of disruptors is to be bought out by an existing company and absorbed into their business, and the name maybe or maybe not disappearing. For instance GE bought and absorbed wind turbine businesses that were in financial trouble, at least until their own recent big problems.

If that happens it doesn't mean that Musk won't start another BEV venture though!

On your fuel cell rant I do have to agree, its very hard to see how all the inefficiencies can possibly be overcome. Its similar to what the fossil fueled power industry dealt with, there are all kinds of other working fluids besides water/steam, and other cycles besides Rankine, which show higher theoretical efficiencies. But you throw in all the complexities of leaks, extra hardware, etc. and nothing big really changed for more than a century.

Yes fuel cells are difficult and expensive, but I sure would have leased a hydrogen Clarity if I lived near a refueler in California! Is there a forum here for those?
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
The "hydrogen economy" is nothing but a confidence game, a hoax perpetrated by Big Oil and its shills, intended as a distraction from the real EV revolution, which is battery-electric cars. Elon Musk has a degree in physics, and physicists were pointing out the impossibility of practical hydrogen-powered cars long before Elon coined the very apt phrase "fool cell cars". Elon's opinion of hydrogen-powered FCEVs has everything to do with reality, physics, science, and basic economics (EROI, or Energy Return On Investment), and nothing at all to do with any hypothetical competition with Tesla Inc. It's not possible for fool cell cars to ever compete with Tesla; they can't even compete with gasmobiles!

No need to yet again go through all the facts and figures proving the impracticality of trying to use hydrogen as an everyday transportation fuel; just see the thread I started here. All the facts, science, and solidly founded reasons are laid out in detail in the first two posts, with plenty of citations and links to authoritative sources.

This really is a settled matter, despite a shrinking number of science-denying Big Oil shills continuing to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


Nope. It is not a settled matter - it is an evolving matter. Your major objection to hydrogen, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is completely off the mark. Why? Because as we move to more and more renewable energy, we will necessarily be moving to a place where we have excesses of electricity. It matters not that making hydrogen takes more energy than it releases as a fuel - because it will be made with "free" energy.

Secondly - significant advances have already been made in the efficiency of hydrogen production by the electrolysis of water. New equipment is rather efficient at this now. IIRC (and my memory ain't what it used to be) efficiency is closing in on 90%.

Lastly - the "hydrogen economy" may well be the methanol or ethanol economy. What is truly exciting is the possibility of combining electrolytically-derived hydrogen with CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere to form methanol or, in my fantasy, ethanol. We would then have easily stored, easily transportable fuel to run all sorts of machines, including home heating, existing farm equipment, tanker ships, airplanes. And if it's ethanol it's also potable booze.

No idea if this will pan out - but people ARE working on it. Imagine putting up PV panels that last more than 100 years, which would be supplying your fuels and power. And booze. One can dream.
 
Why would power companies produce "excess" electricity? They won't bother producing it if they can't sell it at a profit. Are you are hypothesizing a future where >100% of electrical demand is supplied by continuously-available renewables? If so, you are looking wayyyyyy off into the future.
 
RogerB said:
Why would power companies produce "excess" electricity? They won't bother producing it if they can't sell it at a profit. Are you are hypothesizing a future where >100% of electrical demand is supplied by continuously-available renewables? If so, you are looking wayyyyyy off into the future.
Click to expand...
We already have excess electricity from renewables, and we wll have a lot more in future because of the difference between renewable faceplate and capacity factor.
 
Roger Lambert said:
We already have excess electricity from renewables, and we wll have a lot more in future because of the difference between renewable faceplate and capacity factor.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not understanding what you're referring to. Are you saying installed capacity is greater than national demand?
 
Regardless of efficiency and infrastructure, fuel-cells are the only zero-emissions, quick-refill, electric technology. If the price of fuel-cell technology improves greatly, the lack of efficiency will be compensated by the quick-refill capability. Battery-recharge technology is improving, but still nowhere near what people are used to at petrol stations. If there were enough fuel-cell cars to justify it, a nuclear plant could produce an infinite supply of cheap hydrogen, but solar-cell energy and electrolysis have a big head-start on that option.
 
RogerB said:
I guess I'm not understanding what you're referring to. Are you saying installed capacity is greater than national demand?
Click to expand...

The nature of RE is intermittent. So, to deliver a guaranteed amount of Mwhs, a pv or wind farm must 'overbuild' by a certain factor, so the power is still meeting their contractual obligations even when conditions are not optimal. But sometimes conditions ARE optimal in a lot of places at once, so it will be increasingly common, as RE gains share, to have surplus power. It can be moved elsewhere, and it can be also used for needed public projects like desalination plants or making hydrogen or scrubbing CO2 from the air. RE almost implies a world where we can improve the quality of life of all people through the use of cheap plentiful energy.
 
David Towle said:
Pushmi-Pullyu As usual we have lots to disagree on. I won't reiterate my previous arguments that Tesla will be the one to fall, and not the existing auto industry, except to say that fair or not, disruptors are often not the winners in the end. Another common fate of disruptors is to be bought out by an existing company and absorbed into their business, and the name maybe or maybe not disappearing. For instance GE bought and absorbed wind turbine businesses that were in financial trouble, at least until their own recent big problems.

If that happens it doesn't mean that Musk won't start another BEV venture though!

On your fuel cell rant I do have to agree, its very hard to see how all the inefficiencies can possibly be overcome. Its similar to what the fossil fueled power industry dealt with, there are all kinds of other working fluids besides water/steam, and other cycles besides Rankine, which show higher theoretical efficiencies. But you throw in all the complexities of leaks, extra hardware, etc. and nothing big really changed for more than a century.

Yes fuel cells are difficult and expensive, but I sure would have leased a hydrogen Clarity if I lived near a refueler in California! Is there a forum here for those?
Click to expand...

It's certainly true that being a startup during a disruptive tech revolution is absolutely no guarantee that the company will survive for long, let alone become one of the market leaders after things settle out when the tech revolution is over. But Tesla is growing very strongly year-on-year. If they are having financial difficulties, it's not because they can't find a market; it's because they are trying to expand as fast as possible. At worst, Tesla will have to scale back its expansion -- there are signs that is, unfortunately, currently happening. But there are also signs of a coming economic downturn, and if that happens, then a slow-down in expansion is inevitable.

The continual whining from serial Tesla bashers that Tesla is experiencing "falling demand" is something they have been repeating every single day for years and years. In fact, for a decade or longer now. I guess they are still finding people to swallow their cabbage, because they keep churning it out. But no one who's both knowledgeable of the EV industry, and sensible, could possibly believe their bull pucky about "falling demand" any longer.

Tesla's business is quite healthy, and is growing year-on-year far faster than any other auto maker of any size.

Tesla’s global automobile sales totals:
2012: 2650
2013: 22,300
2014: 31,655 (+41.95%)
2015: 50,580 (+59.8%)
2016: 76,230 (+50.7%)
2017: 101,312 (+32.9%)
2018: 245,240 (+142%)

"To put our growth into perspective, we delivered almost as many vehicles in 2018 as we did in all prior years combined."
​
 
Roger Lambert said:
Nope. It is not a settled matter - it is an evolving matter. Your major objection to hydrogen, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is completely off the mark. Why? Because as we move to more and more renewable energy, we will necessarily be moving to a place where we have excesses of electricity. It matters not that making hydrogen takes more energy than it releases as a fuel - because it will be made with "free" energy.
Click to expand...

I always find it amusing when a FCEV fanboy claims that somehow, cheap electricity will make hydrogen fuel practical. Talk about ignoring reality! Cheap electricity, if that becomes a reality, will make BEVs even more competitive against both gasmobiles and fool cell cars.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would continue to bite even if producing H2 really was completely, 100% free. There are several steps in the supply chain of getting compressed H2 into the fuel tank of a fuel cell car, and every one of them wastes energy and increases cost. Making just one link in that chain free does not alter the overall equation much at all. That's basic math.

I am also bemused, rather than amused, by the attempts from FCEV fanboys to handwave away the costs for infrastructure for producing this "free" energy. There is a very important difference between cheap and free. No form of energy will ever be free. Even solar power isn't free. Sunlight is free, but solar panels are not, nor is the cost of installing and maintaining them.

No matter how cheap producing H2 becomes, if it uses electrolysis, then electricity will continue to be somewhere around 3.5-4 times cheaper than H2 made from that electricity, for the same energy content. So BEVs will always win on cost over fool cell cars.

Roger Lambert said:
Lastly - the "hydrogen economy" may well be the methanol or ethanol economy. What is truly exciting is the possibility of combining electrolytically-derived hydrogen with CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere to form methanol or, in my fantasy, ethanol. We would then have easily stored, easily transportable fuel to run all sorts of machines, including home heating, existing farm equipment, tanker ships, airplanes. And if it's ethanol it's also potable booze.
Click to expand...

Here we agree, sir. As I've said many times, the label "fool cell" doesn't apply to the fuel cell itself, but rather to trying to use a fuel as impractical, difficult to handle, wasteful, and expensive as compressed hydrogen. If there is a future for fuel cells, it will be in using some practical fuel to power them; a practical fuel such as synthetic methane or methanol or ethanol.

And that's definitely not the "hydrogen economy".
​
 
David Towle said:
Sure is inactive, everybody's waiting for many months to even get one delivered. The cars probably cost Honda at least $100k each to make.
Click to expand...
The 2008-2014 FCX Clarity reportedly cost more than $1 mil each to build. $100K would represent a truly remarkable reduction in costs.
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
I always find it amusing when a FCEV fanboy claims that somehow, cheap electricity will make hydrogen fuel practical. Talk about ignoring reality! Cheap electricity, if that becomes a reality, will make BEVs even more competitive against both gasmobiles and fool cell cars.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would continue to bite even if producing H2 really was completely, 100% free. There are several steps in the supply chain of getting compressed H2 into the fuel tank of a fuel cell car, and every one of them wastes energy and increases cost. Making just one link in that chain free does not alter the overall equation much at all. That's basic math.

I am also bemused, rather than amused, by the attempts from FCEV fanboys to handwave away the costs for infrastructure for producing this "free" energy. There is a very important difference between cheap and free. No form of energy will ever be free. Even solar power isn't free. Sunlight is free, but solar panels are not, nor is the cost of installing and maintaining them.

No matter how cheap producing H2 becomes, if it uses electrolysis, then electricity will continue to be somewhere around 3.5-4 times cheaper than H2 made from that electricity, for the same energy content. So BEVs will always win on cost over fool cell cars.



Here we agree, sir. As I've said many times, the label "fool cell" doesn't apply to the fuel cell itself, but rather to trying to use a fuel as impractical, difficult to handle, wasteful, and expensive as compressed hydrogen. If there is a future for fuel cells, it will be in using some practical fuel to power them; a practical fuel such as synthetic methane or methanol or ethanol.

And that's definitely not the "hydrogen economy".
​
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed in your zeal to belittle, but I was not talking about gaseous hydrogen as a fuel for cars.
 
Roger Lambert said:
Maybe you missed in your zeal to belittle, but I was not talking about gaseous hydrogen as a fuel for cars.
Click to expand...

Of course that's what you were arguing in favor of. Anyone can look back at your posts and see you used exactly the same arguments -- word for word -- that those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax use.

If you want to argue in favor of synthetic fuel, then please do argue in favor of that -- and not in favor of using hydrogen as a (very inefficient and very expensive) energy carrier for renewable energy.

​
 
insightman said:
Regardless of efficiency and infrastructure, fuel-cells are the only zero-emissions, quick-refill, electric technology. If the price of fuel-cell technology improves greatly, the lack of efficiency will be compensated by the quick-refill capability.
Click to expand...

Fuel cell cars themselves may be zero-emissions, but the process for making H2 fuel, and putting it through all the steps necessary to get it into a fool cell car, certainly isn't! It's nearly as polluting as making and burning gasoline.

Furthermore, even if fool cell cars were no more expensive than gasmobiles, it still wouldn't make operating a fool cell car affordable. The cost to make the fuel and the cost (per vehicle) to build H2 fueling stations is much, much too high to ever compete with gasoline, or compete with a more practical synthetic fuel which doesn't need high compression, doesn't need expensive high-pressure pumps to pressurize and dispense, and doesn't embrittle metals in tanks, pipes, and other fittings it comes in contact with.

Honestly, it would make more sense to advocate that we should return to steam engines for powering cars. That would be little more inefficient, it wouldn't cost a million dollars per dozen cars served per day to build the fueling stations. and you could burn a practical fuel in them for power!

​
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Of course that's what you were arguing in favor of. Anyone can look back at your posts and see you used exactly the same arguments -- word for word -- that those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax use.

If you want to argue in favor of synthetic fuel, then please do argue in favor of that -- and not in favor of using hydrogen as a (very inefficient and very expensive) energy carrier for renewable energy.

​
Click to expand...

I've put you on "Ignore". I get enough abuse from my wife.
 
I don't think any of us know what the future will hold or that we really care if hydrogen or batteries win out in the end. If things go well, I can see a carbon free (or near carbon free) world either through efficient high density batteries or with hydrogen. For either to be a good fit, we will need lots of renewable electrical energy available or maybe even for hydrogen fusion to be a possibility. Hydrogen probably has more breakthroughs needed to be the long term solution for transportation, and I won't be around to see it either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were to win in the end. Regardless, I am glad that it is still on the table and that research is going on just in case it turns out to be the best long term solution. By the way, I know this is all beyond reason and that I might as well believe in unicorns, although I have read that a few here have seen some. I need better drugs, I guess...
 
Robert_Alabama said:
...or maybe even for hydrogen fusion to be a possibility.
Click to expand...

I keep hoping for commercial fusion power, too. (And it doesn't necessarily need to use hydrogen.) I keep checking on the progress of the Polywell project, but they don't seem to be advancing very fast, if at all. The other approaches, like ITER, seem much too expensive to ever produce power profitably... altho "never" is a long time. ;)
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top