You are seriously going to believe what an oil company CEO says? Lol. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I suspect that's what will finally kill off hydrogen cars--especially when the first collateral damage happens. The real problem will be when the fleet ages and the containers aren't so safe anymore.
That's why hydrogen will always be the future. Nobody is going to want to drive a bomb around after the first few explosions and deaths.
- - - Updated - - -
You beat me to it by 2 minutes. Lol
Hydrogen Car Fire Surprise : EVWORLD.COM
---
Electricity makes more sense to me for a number of reasons including:
* Infrastructure to distribute electricity all over is already in place.
(It costs a lot to truck hydrogen supplies to filling stations, probably burning fossil fuels to do so.)
* Better overall efficiency.
(How much electricity/fuel was used to isolate the hydrogen, compress it, ship it around, etc.)
* Electricity can be created from a variety of sources.
* Less complexity.
(Fully electric cars don't need a fuel cell, fuel tank, etc.)
---
Electricity makes more sense to me for a number of reasons including:
* Infrastructure to distribute electricity all over is already in place.
(It costs a lot to truck hydrogen supplies to filling stations, probably burning fossil fuels to do so.)
* Better overall efficiency.
(How much electricity/fuel was used to isolate the hydrogen, compress it, ship it around, etc.)
* Electricity can be created from a variety of sources.
* Less complexity.
(Fully electric cars don't need a fuel cell, fuel tank, etc.)
Shell publicly opposed Proposition 23 that would have repealed California's climate change law, a proposition that was supported and largely funded by a number of other oil companies. That position resulted in this recent announcement. Several of the oil companies that supported Prop 23 don't even have operations in California.
One of the possible reasons why people start raising the possibility of conspiracy theory (I am not a subscriber to it) is that it is so against the common sense and may I say foolish to promote fcvs and motivations behind such behaviour are so difficult to understand and accept. I can not accept ignorance as an explanation at these levels.
Interesting article about Fiat's electric cars.
Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please dont buy Fiat 500e electric car - Yahoo Finance
Fiat Chrysler CEO: Please dont buy Fiat 500e electric car - Yahoo Finance
I don't, the regulations tend to be that non fixed, pressurised hydrogen storage needs to be hydrostaticly tested by an approved testing lab every 5 years. Ie these cyclinders will need to be removed and sent to a approved lab and validated every five years. Inconvenient yes, expensive yes, safe yes. Its the equivalent of having a recall legislated in, on a 5 yearly cycle.
StapleGun
Member
From the article:
So a base 500e costs Fiat about $46,500 to make. The absolute base Model S goes for $69,900 (before tax credits), and assuming 20% margins (much lower than Tesla's average) it costs Tesla somewhere around $55,900 to build a base Model S.
| Fiat 500e | Tesla Model S | |
| Production Cost | $46,500 | $55,900 |
| EPA Range | 87 miles | 208 miles |
| Seating | 4 | 5 |
| Cargo Capacity | 7 cu. ft. | 26.3 cu. ft. |
| 0-60 Time | 9.1s | 5.9 s |
| Console | image | image |
| NHSTA Safety Rating | 4-star* | 5-star** |
** 5.3 stars
Tesla's competitive advantage is enormous right now.
Last edited:
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Sad really although I commend the CEO for being brutally honest.
I see so many 500e on the road here. They do look nice; the tailpipe ruins the otherwise symmetric look of the rear of the regular 500.
I test drove the 500e at the REFUEL races at Laguna Seca last year. It's a fun little car. Too bad their days are numbered.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Tedkidd
Member
@CalDreaming
We are arriving at similar conclusions but I am sorry to say that I think it is important to take issue with some dangerously credulous assumptions you are making in your conspiracy theory theory.
"For many years, there has been a widespread belief among many government energy and environmental agencies, university and national laboratory experts, as well as many within the auto and energy industries that the future of sustainable transport involves hydrogen FCVs".
There is a fallacy of definition in this sentence. Sustainable yes, Environmentally Sustainable. No. The core NREL Fuel Cell commercial viability research is a Big auto and Big Oil consultancy project conducted by BP/Daimler, Chevron/Hyundai, GM/Shell, Ford/BP alongside SMR operators Air Products Inc. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/54860.pdf
There is one throw away little paragraph on the subject of emissions (Section 2.2.2) that DISPROVES the environmental benefits of FCVs by stating that this technology delivers 42mpg well to wheel pollution equivalence to a 21mpg car in the best case and on average 31.5mpg pollution equivalence for on-site SMR. This is for a bunch of super-low performance 134hp Hydrogen-HEVs that are handily beaten on emissions performance by gasoline-HEVs and destroyed on performance by any modern 21mpg car = false equivalence.
This false equivalence has ben leveraged wide open in the marketing of FCVs.
LOOK:
California Fuel Cell Partnership :
“The well-to-wheels reports show that hydrogen made from natural gas and used in a fuel cell vehicle reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 55%-65% compared to gasoline used in a conventional vehicle, and by about 40% compared to gasoline in a hybrid engine.”
LOOK:
Hyundai
"the hydrogen fuel cell provides lower total well-to-wheel emissions than a battery electric vehicle. For the Tucson Fuel Cell driver, this social benefit is achieved with greater utility, versatility and without compromises."
This is called LIES.
LOOK who is falling for it over your head and on your behalf:
California Energy Commission
"Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have made long-term big investments in FCVs, and relatively less in BEVs, because they believe FCVs are future of sustainable transport. They would be knowingly setting their companies up for serious harm if they actually believed FCVs were doomed to fail and that BEVs are the future."
I am sorry to say that in this sentence you have set up a straw man.
They are not doing this despite the fact they believe they are doomed to fail. They clearly don't need to believe in it enough to take the risk on infrastructure costs - that needs to be borne by the rest of us by counting on the above LIES to usurp State and Federal environmental budgets by the $100s millions - but they are most definitely doing this to win by the destruction of BEVs in general and Tesla in particular.
I think this Hyundai Tucson FCV @ $499 per month and free hydrogen (given that it is apparently costing Hyundai $145,000 to build each one) ought to be the most ample warning of the market manipulation tactics Tesla is up against in 2015.
I have my own theories of what Musk has up his sleeve to turn this scam into a very painful loss for Big Auto, but meanwhile it is imperative in my view to take issue with government environmental funding pouring into a war chest to fight against the environment - and Tesla as target numero uno.
- - - Updated - - -
So far a simple acknowledgement. I also got a nice letter Phd from Aerovironment and a nice endorsement from a Harvard transportation professor.
Also getting seriously checked out on Linkedin by fuel cell guys - Ballard power etc.
Last edited:
DOT 49 CFR 180.209 for hydrogen cylinders h2
nb honda clarity is about 170litre internal volume, so these would be 5 year re-qualification requirements. I don't know the penalty for non compliance.Similar threads
