-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"While our process is not yet optimized, we estimate that an ammonia decomposition reactor no bigger than a two-liter bottle will provide enough hydrogen to run a mid-range family car."
now there's a marketing projection for you- 'reactor' and 'family car' all in the same sentence. Tesla fires x 1000.
GM, Toyota... recall mavens, now marketing a move from fireball ICE fuels to 'reactors' of explosive ones.
Maybe they should just skip a step and go straight to- 'Top Fuel got nothin on us'-
Investor Marketing: 'automatically sends every accident straight to the moon, removing all evidence and recall requirements'
This is really going to be fun to watch
Tedkidd
Member
Robert, Can you move those to a new thread? Good topic.
I just drove 2200 miles and was wishing for active cruise control that I could tell to always set my speed at 105% of the speed limit...
Yes that is a hot topic, speeding and getting away with it. It is like having your cake and eating it.:wink:
My car has some attempt of speed warning signaling, but it only accepts fixed speed limit setting. That has very limited value as it is useful on some roads only.
Electric buses and motorcycles
Electric bus builder Proterra raised more than $180 in a series of funding rounds.
Poterra buses are priced at $900k, vs $500k for conventional buses. The annual fuel savings are $50k.
Buses drive short fixed routes, with battery packs of 54kWh to 72kWh.
Harley Davidson released a prototype powered by a lithium ion battery. Range 53 miles, recharge time 3.5 hrs, 74hp, top speed 92mph.
Buses and motorcycles are not in the same market as Tesla. Electric powered buses and motorcycles are positive development on many levels. They may easily become gigafactory customers.
Electric bus builder Proterra raised more than $180 in a series of funding rounds.
Poterra buses are priced at $900k, vs $500k for conventional buses. The annual fuel savings are $50k.
Buses drive short fixed routes, with battery packs of 54kWh to 72kWh.
Harley Davidson released a prototype powered by a lithium ion battery. Range 53 miles, recharge time 3.5 hrs, 74hp, top speed 92mph.
Buses and motorcycles are not in the same market as Tesla. Electric powered buses and motorcycles are positive development on many levels. They may easily become gigafactory customers.
So 8 years to break even, 18 years to pay for itself, not bad. I would have invested even $200 in this myself if they asked me :wink:
[SUB]I think you left out a word after the figure...[/SUB]
My fingers seek independence from eye control. Not ready yet.:biggrin:
I think local councils could help with ev buses adoption by either regulation or subsidies. I would not mind paying higher rates to contribute towards getting smelly noisy buses out of my neighbourhood. In cities, noise is significant pollutant.
Fuel cells vs bev, automakers choice
Interesting article on Seeking Alpha, Tesla's fuell cell threat, by Randy Carlson.
The author presents interesting dynamics of fcv vs bev technology, from car makers perspective. Some highlights:
Fuel cells could be a less costly way for automakers to build clean long range cars. The savings are in the lighter weight of fcv car. Weight comparison:
Making fuel cells may allow car makers to make more money than by making bev cars. That factor may prevail in the decision making process when deciding on green technology.
Complexity of fuel cells and their inferior technology are not the deciding metrics. Nor is the problem of making and distributing hydrogen. Oil companies have sufficient motivations to do whatever it takes to defend the gas station model for fuelling cars. Oil companies have money to put behind rolling out hydrogen fuelling infrastructure.
This dynamics might change if battery technology improves and makes bev weight comparable to fcv weight.
The relevant missing force in the article and analysis it presents are consumers. Car weight does not matter to drivers that much, it is not a deciding metrics. The consumers and their choices may well be the prevailing force in the battle of technologies.
Interesting article on Seeking Alpha, Tesla's fuell cell threat, by Randy Carlson.
The author presents interesting dynamics of fcv vs bev technology, from car makers perspective. Some highlights:
Fuel cells could be a less costly way for automakers to build clean long range cars. The savings are in the lighter weight of fcv car. Weight comparison:
Making fuel cells may allow car makers to make more money than by making bev cars. That factor may prevail in the decision making process when deciding on green technology.
Complexity of fuel cells and their inferior technology are not the deciding metrics. Nor is the problem of making and distributing hydrogen. Oil companies have sufficient motivations to do whatever it takes to defend the gas station model for fuelling cars. Oil companies have money to put behind rolling out hydrogen fuelling infrastructure.
This dynamics might change if battery technology improves and makes bev weight comparable to fcv weight.
The relevant missing force in the article and analysis it presents are consumers. Car weight does not matter to drivers that much, it is not a deciding metrics. The consumers and their choices may well be the prevailing force in the battle of technologies.
So the point is that lighter cars are cheaper to make. Well, I do not completely agree, because the cost depends on more than just the amount of raw material (which correlates with weight), the complexity is also a significant factor in the production cost and BEV wins in that over FCV.
Furthermore, apart from the production cost it is also important to be able to sell the vehicles at competitive prices. That's where FCVs will have a much bigger hurdle. Who wants to buy a car that is more expensive to fuel & maintain but has far less carrying capacity and performance than the alternatives, while also being much more dangerous (10,000 psi "bomb" under the seat) and very inconvenient to find fueling stations ?
Furthermore, apart from the production cost it is also important to be able to sell the vehicles at competitive prices. That's where FCVs will have a much bigger hurdle. Who wants to buy a car that is more expensive to fuel & maintain but has far less carrying capacity and performance than the alternatives, while also being much more dangerous (10,000 psi "bomb" under the seat) and very inconvenient to find fueling stations ?
adiggs
Well-Known Member
With this article, Randy Carlson has added himself into my Petersen bucket; these are the authors writing about TSLA that I no longer click through to see what they have to say.
This particular article I found no evidence that Randy has any particular understanding of the paradigm shift associated with EVs - that's an important part of my investment thesis, whether somebody is long or short the company. More specifically to this article, he sets up an argument that weight of the car is the primary determinant of expense and what car makers are most interested in. It's interesting that Ford hasn't replaced all that steel with aluminum in the F150 before now in that case.
He also manages to hint that Tesla is locked into their current battery chemistry, thus Tesla is somehow the worst of all worlds - an interesting way to view today's current reality.
The idea could be an interesting one to pursue - if somebody else pursues it, then I'm likely to read and learn more.
This particular article I found no evidence that Randy has any particular understanding of the paradigm shift associated with EVs - that's an important part of my investment thesis, whether somebody is long or short the company. More specifically to this article, he sets up an argument that weight of the car is the primary determinant of expense and what car makers are most interested in. It's interesting that Ford hasn't replaced all that steel with aluminum in the F150 before now in that case.
He also manages to hint that Tesla is locked into their current battery chemistry, thus Tesla is somehow the worst of all worlds - an interesting way to view today's current reality.
The idea could be an interesting one to pursue - if somebody else pursues it, then I'm likely to read and learn more.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is the thing that allows you to dismiss that chart completely. I have never seen a person not buy a car because it's too heavy, esp. for something like a 200 lb difference (about the weight of 1-2 people). Most people don't even know what their car weighs nor do they research it when buying.
The volume matters more because that determines your cargo and passenger capacity, and in this regard FCVs have no advantage (may be even worse in some cases).
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
12 seconds is the Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell. Toyota has indicated the FCV will be similar to the Prius, so expect around 10 seconds.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
This is 100% BS. Anyone with a brain knows that the 18650 factor is the cell size, and has nothing to do with battery chemistry. Anyone can put whatever chemistry they want into the 18650 cell(as Tesla has done with the custom Model S cell).
I really don't understand why cell size even matters. It's like arguing about the shape of an ICE vehicle tank. Stupid.
Yeah, slow and expensive. They should just look at the sales of the Cadillac ELR.
Similar threads
