Reuters Declares Electric Vehicles a “Dead End”

By · February 04, 2013

Dead End Sign

Reuters today published a widely syndicated article entitled, “Insight: Electric Cars Head Toward Another Dead End.” The piece had three primary authors, four additional contributing reporters, and two editors—a team of journalists that states as its thesis in the first paragraph that electric cars are “not ready for prime time, and may never be.” The authors instead report that automotive executives across the globe are shifting to a “promising new alternative power source: hydrogen.”

EVs Pitted Against Hydrogen

What will the takeaway be for most readers? Automakers are now shifting to hydrogen, because EVs, as Reuters states, are plagued with problems such as high cost and lack of infrastructure.

This is EV-to-hydrogen cost comparison is hard to understand, considering that the cost of plug-in electric vehicles are dropping, with a base-level 2013 Nissan LEAF now below $20,000 in California—after federal and state incentives. The new Smart Electric Drive will start at $25,000 before incentives, and a plug-in hybrid like the Ford C-Max Energi—depending on local incentives and trim packages—costs less than its conventional hybrid counterpart. Production volume for vehicles and batteries is expanding, to further bring down costs over time. At the same time, the number of charging stations, both Level 2 240V and DC Quick Chargers, is steadily growing.

The Reuters article meanwhile gives the impression that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are indeed ready for prime time—but fails to mention that new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are still two or three years away from coming to market; that they remain prohibitively expensive to produce; and that hydrogen fuel (and the stations that could provide it) are much more expensive and less practical than electricity as an automotive fuel. EV drivers use ubiquitous cheap electricity, often supplied right in their garage, to power their cars. (The D.O.E. currently lists 10 hydrogen fueling stations in the United States, compared to more than 5,000 public EV charging stations).

The authors rightly point out that the Obama Administration has backed off its goal of putting 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road by 2015. But the article also fails to mention that the 1 million EV target, instead, will likely be reached by about 2017.

EVs Pitted Against Hybrids

Besides hydrogen, Reuters posits that the shift to conventional hybrids by Nissan and others is further evidence that plug-in cars have failed. It's true that Nissan and other automakers will continue to offer hybrid options in mainstream models, in order to meet increasingly strict emissions standards. But this auto industry trend is taking place on a separate track from EVs. In other words, EVs and hybrids are not an either-or proposition. (Actually, hybrids are widely considered a gateway for a consumer to make a subsequent purchase of a plug-in hybrid or EV—so today’s hybrid owners are likely to become tomorrow’s EV drivers.)

The Reuters authors point to Nissan’s announcement that it will introduce 15 new hybrids globally by early 2017, as some kind of evidence that EVs have failed. But Carlos Ghosn, Nissan’s chief executive, states in the article that production of hybrids is a “pragmatic” decision, even as the company “continues to heavily promote electric cars.”

Toyota has never been a champion of EVs, and has a vested interest in continuing to roll out conventional hybrids. So, it’s not surprising that Toyota Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, told Reuters that EVs are “not a viable replacement for most conventional cars."

Then again, after a dozen years on the U.S. market, conventional hybrids still represent just 3.3 percent of new car sales—so based on this logic, hybrids are also not a replacement for conventional cars. Even the most ardent EV fans do not believe that pure electric cars will replace all conventional cars—but instead can quite practically serve as a replacement for a small but continually expanding percentage of local driving (and eventually a growing part of regional driving).

Reuters rightly acknowledges that it took Toyota 10 years (starting with its first sales) to become cost-effective and profitable with the Prius and other hybrids—an investment of time and funds that was criticized by media for years, and now looks smart. But two years into the EV market, battery-powered cars are already being pronounced a “dead end,” and investments by Nissan and others as a losing proposition in an all-or-nothing gamble.

Pronounced Dead Before Arrival

Reuters gives Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Nissan executive vice president and head of research and development, a chance to say, “With EV technologies continuously improving and with prices falling, there is a possibility that sales could explode." But the authors immediately follow with their own declaration: “That isn't likely to happen anytime soon.”

It makes good sense to be realistic about how long it will take the EV market to become mature. Some EV executives have been too eager to overhype these vehicles a broad-based solution. Fair enough. But by declaring EVs a “dead end”—and to characterize hybrids and hydrogen as the real winners in the race for greener car technology—comes off as a poorly argued anti-EV hit piece.

Comments

· · 1 year ago

EV's Dead?

Gorr isn't going to like this, but they've been propping up Zombie Hydrogen (dead) cars for over 30 years. I'd like someone to tell me the Business plan for H2 cars... What with all the capital and operating expenses, I don't think ANYONE except the most ardent self-styled environmentalist or governments (THEY don't care about costs since if they run out of money they just say, "No Problem! We'll just RAISE TAXES!") could afford any Hydrogen vehicles when compared to even gasoline. They surely can't say refueling with gasoline is less convenient than hydrogen. And EV's top the convenience factor since you can refuel an EV in your own driveway or garage almost without thinking about it, with the benefit usually of much lower operating cost.

CNG would be an easier and much more productive venue to pursue, since the infrastructure is here. Plus all the existing improvements in engine and car efficiency of late model gasoline powered cars can be harnessed in natural gas powered cars.

The one missing link with CNG is home-refueling. There were more options 10 years ago. Now you can't even get a new Phill refueler, and Fat Chance about getting maintenance or an overhaul of an existing one. CNG would be so EASY to do... Does British Petroleum (oops, they don't want to be called that anymore) really have such a strangle hold on refining that they are scared of American Produced Natural Gas energy for our cars and trucks?

EV's meanwhile certainly are *NOT* dead. And they are at least 10 years ahead of Hydrogen. The Chevy Volt EV is the most satisfying car EVER for two years in a row. Hardly dead.

I'm beginning to Smell a Rat.

· · 1 year ago

@Bill

I think people may read your posts if you stop bashing people who don't agree with your "burn the earth to make some money" politics.

· · 1 year ago

Nice hit piece funded by the oil lobby who want to continue to control how you fill your vehicles even after oil - this time through hydrogen.

· · 1 year ago

@Bill - 'But wait, wait' (he said, sarcastically). 'The Volt isn't a pure EV.' The Reuters people may consider it a hybrid - and technically it may be one. To give the devils their due, absent some order of magnitude increase in energy storage capacity (see discussion "EV Car Batteries: It’s Not (Just) How Cheap You Make ‘em, It’s How You Make ‘em Cheap" - rico567's comment), pure EVs may be, if not dead, then significantly delayed. Even that increase may not be enough.

@Brad - "(and eventually a growing part of regional driving)". I really doubt this. After the novelty wears off, how many times are you going to pull into a public charger and cool your heels for 2 or 3 hours if you can just take a gas burner and drive straight through? In addition to that order of magnitude increase in capacity, IMHO break throughs in battery chemistry for quick charging are going to be required. (Is this even possible?) And even then, given the choice between 5 minutes to fill a gas tank and 30 minutes to charge a battery, guess what most people are going to choose?

Physics-challenged citizens (like yours truly) who were taken in by Bush 2's "hydrogen hoax" at least didn't have to fork over billions of dollars before it was revealed as such. It is way past time to make it clear exactly what EVs are good for - LOCAL driving, 95% of most people's driving needs. And for those who would like to drive an EV but want to be able to do that other 5% on demand, let 'em buy a Volt. (Come to think of it, 'pure' EV owners are so unlikely to use all those public charging stations very often, the long delays may not bother them!)

· · 1 year ago

the article would not have been spurred by recent large oil deposits found in Australia and elsewhere? trying to build up some demand for all that gasoline here?

The EVs biggest obstacle besides incorrect assumptions made by the general public due to articles like the one referenced is the lack of governmental support. This prevents private businesses for supporting EVs because they have no security in doing so.

there are a lot of things that would cost NO money. parking enforcement, waivers of demand fees from public ultilities for charging stations, a removal of the antiquated "cant sell anything at a rest stop" etc.

we simply need to get into the right frame of mind politically. the rest will fall into place. EVs are the right thing to do on so many levels, even the swayed public will realize it if only given the chance

· · 1 year ago

Even if using hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is feasible, this article makes some big false assumptions. As others have mentioned, creating an abundant supply of hydrogen along with the means to deliver it is quite difficult -- unless of course you use readily available fossil fuels to produce that hydrogen. Existing gas stations could generate hydrogen from unleaded gas, diesel, biodiesel, or potentially natural gas. All of these methods miss the mark as they will result in emission of greenhouse gasses.

Take this a step further and lets be super optimistic and imagine that we have found a way to produce an abundance of hydrogen without polluting our atmosphere. Well, even then we have two new problems. Some hydrogen will be leaked either through production, distribution or from storage tanks inside and outside of vehicles. See this article from Science Magazine: http://www.caltech.edu/content/hydrogen-economy-might-impactearths-strat... which discusses the negative impact on our ozone layer from released hydrogen.

What about all the water vapor that will be created from these hydrogen powered wonder-cars? Not only is water produced, but very hot water vapor as steam. Whether the amount released will be enough to contribute to climate change is debated, it does warrant consideration.

Our biggest challenges seem to be cultural, not technical. People want to purchase a vehicle that offers the range that they rarely need. Most of our time is spent driving locally (for most of us, there are of course, exceptions). If we need to go further we can use an auto-train, take a bus, train, or plane. If we need one we can rent a car in our destination city or where available use a car sharing option.

Even with our existing culture (in America) EVs can assuage our needs and wants. Tesla has shown us that not only are EVs with 300 mile range possible, but they can be quickly charge in route -- for free if you are lucky enough to be traveling in an area with Tesla solar charging stations. Battery technology will continue to evolve as will our ability to generate electricity from renewable sources. EVs are here to stay even if their acceptance takes a bit longer than many of us hope.

-Rudi
http://www.evchronicles.com

· · 1 year ago

That Reuters article had such a sad false narrative. It tried to portray Nissan's Leaf effort as starting at the same time as Toyota's hybrid effort and thus crowned hybrids as the victor among two big losers. Ugh. The Prius is the #1 selling car in California. And hybrids will catch on across the nation as gas prices continue to rise. Electric cars are still in their infancy stage and they will continue to struggle as long as gasoline remains relatively cheap.

But gas prices only go in one direction over the long term . . . up. Oil is finite commodity and some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around that. Lots of people think we are in some new age of oil because of the fracked "tight" oil from North Dakota and Texas. The only reason oil production is up is BECAUSE PRICES ARE HIGHER. If prices were to drop, that production would drop.

It is sad that such misinformed tripe gets out to the populace. But reporters are generalists and they rarely know much about what they are writing about.

· · 1 year ago

It's truly sad what passes for journalism in the mainstream media. The authors of that Reuters article haven't got a clue. If they'd never mentioned hydrogen then they might have been simply ignorant. But suggesting that hydrogen is more "promising" than (B)EVs shows they didn't even do enough research to understand the relationship between BEVs, which meet 90%+ of most people's needs, and range extended electric vehicles, which cover the remaining long-range requirements during the DC fast charging build-out.

Very sad, indeed.

· · 1 year ago

You know what was really bizarre about that crappy article? IT DID NOT MENTION PLUG-IN HYBRIDS AT ALL!

Going by sales numbers, the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) such as the Chevy Volt, the Ford C-Max Energi, the Toyota Plug-In Prius, and the Ford Fusion Energi is the hottest segment of plug-in vehicles sales. Why didn't they mention them? Instead they just painted EVs as some failure.

And instead of pointing out that Nissan is renewing their EV effort with a new Leaf S model that is more cost-effective and built in the USA, they merely say that Nissan 'slashed the price'. No, they didn't just slash the price, they offered a new lower-priced model.

· · 1 year ago

@EVnow

People do read my posts, and conversely I read theirs, so I'm not losing any sleep. I always enjoy Gorr's posts since there is some thought behind what he says even though I may disagree with it. He is worth emulating.

· · 1 year ago

I am not sure why people get surprised by articles like these. These sort of people get paid to spread misinformation and lies. It is clever that they write off a current technology like electric vehicles and talk about a possible future technology so we can be offered a carrot some time in a future that will never come. Too many vested interests want us to keep running vehicles on oil no matter the cost. I imagine the more electric cars on the roads the more articles like these we will see.

· · 1 year ago

@Deckard
No need to posit a conspiracy theory when simply human ignorance can explain things just as well. Most news writers don't know a damn thing about science and engineering so they've really got no clue what they are talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if various entities like oil companies pushed for hydrogen because it if it worked, it would give them a new market for their natural gas and they could sell it at their service stations. (And if it didn't work, it would keep their oil market in charge.) But these reporters are probably just clueless not malicious.

· · 1 year ago

This article is pretty much on a level with the article it critiques.
'hydrogen fuel (and the stations that could provide it) are much more expensive and less practical than electricity as an automotive fuel.'

Sounds to me like a conclusion in search of a supporting rationale.
In fact since hydrogen stations are very comparable to natural gas stations in much of the equipment they use, needing compression equipment etc and each one can serve hundreds of customers, and since not every car has a garage to charge with 50% of vehicles kept beside the road infrastructure costs by the DOE etc are given as ball park comparable for batteries and hydrogen, and in any case a small fraction of the cost of buying the vehicles for either alternative.
In the real world most car manufacturers see battery cars as being viable for city cars at most for some time, plug ins are where most are looking to for the next ten years or so, and hydrogen for longer distance travel further on.

I can't see anything here or in the Reuter's report to make much difference to that judgement.

· · 1 year ago

The only thing that remains to be made is putting an EV with a 75 miles EV range and a range extender. Not a full size double motorization like in the Volt which bring the cost to high but an EV with a micro generator. That is the true start of global EV market. An EV with a Rex as range anxiety vaccine.

· · 1 year ago

@Deckard

Hi haven't seen you around in a while. Yeah, the UN's agenda21 is about 5 years ahead of schedule in Australia. I heard many of your farmers are throwing in the towel. You hear anything similar? thanks.

A good book to read is "Behind the Green Mask".

· · 1 year ago

Not enough infrastructure to support EVs? Compared to what infrastructure? The hydrogen fueling infrastructure? That's hilarious! Virtually every home and business is connected to the EV fueling infrastructure, it's called the electrical grid. The authors of this article are either woefully ignorant or they're being paid to write a hit piece.

If by infrastructure, these boneheads mean public charging stations, I've only used public charging stations twice in the month I've been driving a Leaf. I didn't even need the extra range. I used these public charging stations because they were available. Also, I've been getting by just fine on a level 1,120 V charging station.

· · 1 year ago

@EVNow,

I personally always read Bill's posts, although I don't always agree with him politically. He almost always has something meaningful to contribute to the conversation. And as an owner of both a Tesla and a Volt, he has first-hand experience that many of us (like me) can only dream of!

@world2steven: "After the novelty wears off, how many times are you going to pull into a public charger and cool your heels for 2 or 3 hours if you can just take a gas burner and drive straight through?"

Tesla's superchargers can give you about 300 miles of range for every hour of charging. 300 miles takes 4 hours at 75mph. Most people stop more often than this anyway, unless they have multiple drivers and are pushing extremely long distances (e.g. cross-country). It's really not as bad as you're trying to make it.

Plus, how often do most people drive more than 300 miles? The slight inconvenience in the long trip (which can easily be absorbed into a meal time), is more than compensated by the extreme convenience of day-to-day charging at home. Most people are intelligent enough to figure this out. As more and more people buy Volts/Energis/PiPs, they will experience the convenience factor for themselves.

· · 1 year ago

Im interrested in buying all of that but especially hydrogen with 2 wheels drive, light and at a price of 10000$ to 20 000$ and now instead of 2030.

· · 1 year ago

@ Brian Schwerdt - Interesting about the Tesla superchargers. Does Tesla advise against do this quick-charging too often? I agree that an hour's down time for every 300 miles traveled is not unreasonable, though the participants in the scenario you suggest of multiple drivers on a long trip might not. What IS unreasonable is to expect Joe or Josephine 6-pack to shell out what a Tesla with one of those big batteries costs - especially if they are going to prematurely age them with a lot of long distance driving.

It seems like I read about some kind of battery chemistry that permits this quick charging without the deleterious effects. Is that chemistry compatible with the order of magnitude increase in capacity said to be required to make EVs viable, at least for distance driving? What is GM using in its Spark?

Absent these kinds of breakthroughs, it still seems that the most economical combination is some Volt-like built-in range extender for those few occasions when people really do need to drive further than today's right-now EV battery technology can take them economically, i.e. without excessive battery wear. (Of course, there is always the rebuilding a viable inter-city mass transit option. But most people oppose these 'socialist' subsidies to those who can't afford Teslas or lesser cars - as opposed to the interstates that were plunked down and are maintained by the hand of God.)

One more question... when I leased my LEAF, the Volt's built-in range extender seemed like an unnecessary complication of a complex system that could only serve to enrich GM in the long run with after-market sales and service. After 14 months with the LEAF - and 6 weeks with a Volt - I am wondering if an extra built-in energy source is not a requirement for maximizing battery life for those living in places with extreme climates, like Arizona? What would the range hit have been if Nissan had supplied the LEAF with an active thermal management system?

· · 1 year ago

It is really too bad we continue to get hacks writing about things they don't know about. Our electric infrastructure already needs help, but adding lots of EV's won't hurt it.

Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric cars - with a hydrogen range extender. And how's that hydrogen infrastructure workin'? Sheesh...

I hope that responsible folks will write about how they drive 100% gasoline free day in and day out, for about 3 cents/mile, and how all that money stays in their local economy - and none of it going to foreign countries. Plugin hybrids are growing more common, and will work for those who need to drive farther each day than an EV can go.

Neil

· · 1 year ago

"Not a full size double motorization like in the Volt which bring the cost to high but an EV with a micro generator. "

NOT this again.

There are NO micro generator out there that is powerful enough to allow to climb up the Rock Mountains or Sierra Nevada... The range Extender has to be powerful enough to sustain the 1 hour long climb with full passenger in the car. You can't design a car with partial capabilty. That is the LAST THING WE NEED. We do NOT need to give the media any more ammunition to show how incompetent some of those "plugins" are. Look at CODA, IMIEV and SmartEV's sales numbers as proof...

· · 1 year ago

@Gorr,

You cannot get what you're asking for at that price now, or in 2030. If that was available, I'm sure many people would trip over themselves to get it as well.

@world2steven,

Tesla does not advise against use of their superchargers, as needed. There is a concept of a "1C" charge rate which is proportional to the size of the battery. In essence, most modern batteries can easily handle a full charge in 1 hour, regardless of the size of the battery. If your battery can take you 73 miles (Leaf), you can safely charge at 73 mph. If your battery can take you 250 miles (Tesla Model S), you can safely charge at 250 mph. Nissan's problem is they have a small battery. To QC at a reasonable rate, they allow up to 2C charging. This stresses the battery, creating extra heat and extra wear and tear.

My point here is that the technology is here, now, with the Tesla Model S, to completely change the utility of BEVs. Anyone can buy it, for a price. That price will fall over time. How fast is anyone's guess, but mark my words, it will fall. We don't need a breakthrough in technology, we need an evolution towards lowering prices. The Reuters article proclaims that this cannot and will not be done, yet Tesla continues their march towards this "dead end" future.

· · 1 year ago

@Brad Berman - I imagine you get paid by the number of comments to an article, so this fits into your market plan to create discussion - even if Reuters "started it!". Just like most news, this is sensationalist hydrogen pipe dream is meant only to get our attention and illicit EV ire. I should know better.

But, to respond to a related point: @ModernMarvelFan- The generator idea is problematic and expensive, look at Fisker. And I agree with you, nobody will be able to drive an EV at 75mph or up a long hill without 110% of the power the electric motor can give on a full battery. A micro-generator won't be enough for most people and automakers wouldn't do it, as it would give an inconsistent drive experience and could be a safety issue (imagine having a 50% drop in power when you step on it to clear an intersection, for example). It's why I'm really interested to see how BMW's i3 with Rex will work out, if they follow-through with it.

· · 1 year ago

@ spec

Hardly a conspiracy theory just reality. I think you are living in a fantasy world if you think that the people who control the media don't know exactly the agenda that they are trying to push.

· · 1 year ago

Hi Bill

I have been on listening in to what's been going on just haven't posted much. I think you are really a bit of a closet greenie Bill. What with your electric cars, giving the fracking industry a hard time and talking about buying solar. Don't worry I wont tell anyone Ha Ha.

Not sure what UN agenda 21 is. I know talking to farmers it is a real struggle selling produce to the 2 main supermarket chains and a lot of the smaller ones have just given it up as a bad joke. A lot of the smaller fruit and vegie stores get undersold by the big 2 who put them out of business then raise their prices when the job of done.

One of the major conservative rural MP's wants sweeping limitations on how much control of the market the major 2 have. Down to less than 50% of the market as I think it is currently around 90% of all fruit and vegies are sold by the huge multinationals. So much for capitalism eh how about a bit of fair competion and a level playing field.

Organic fruit and vegies is a big niche market over here as there is a lot more mark up on the produce and a lot of small growers sell them at markets and the like.

Also on another subject the farmers over here are raging because of the fracking industry destroying their water bores and poisioning their water. I am surprised that they haven't started destroying the well heads yet. The fracking industry is absolutely hated by the farming community. Thankfully NSW still has severe restricions on the industry to my knowledge there is no fracking in NSW

· · 1 year ago

Reuters declares about a hundred things a day. I don't think they're worth reading and stopping to process. You couldn't finish one article before they'd declared another thing.

· · 1 year ago

@Brian Schwerdt - Isn’t what you are really saying here ‘Until the cost of big batteries like Tesla comes down to where cars that have them can be profitably sold at prices comparable to the LEAF, prospective buyers should be advised against buying LEAF price class cars if:
1. their everyday range requirements exceed what LEAF-class batteries can reliably deliver over a period of years – and / or
2. they will repeatedly be making trips requiring one or more battery charges before they reach their destinations?
(Or buy what technically is just a plug-in hybrid, like the Volt?)

What this all boils down to is the question ‘Is a pure EV in the LEAF price class ready for prime time for Joe / Josephine 6-pack right now, today? Nissan made some comprises to make the LEAF’s price point. Time will tell whether they were right. But until then, shouldn’t EV advocates come clean and help prospective buyers become aware of what those compromises entail, e.g. a real world range considerably less than the 100 (or so) miles Nissan originally claimed and the damage LEAF drivers are doing when they repeatedly quick or 100% charge their batteries?

· · 1 year ago

@world2steven,

I agree with 99% of what you said. I agree with the two criteria for a prospective Leaf buyer, and always try to "come clean" when talking to people. I always advise against the Leaf as one's only car. But it works very well as one's primary car, given they have a multi-car household. If it doesn't, I point at the Volt as another excellent option.

What I disagree with is "What this all boils down to is the question ‘Is a pure EV in the LEAF price class ready for prime time for Joe / Josephine 6-pack right now, today?", especially in the context of this particular article. Reuters declared that EVs are a dead end, but your question focuses on the here and now. I do believe that the technology already exists for the masses, but not at the right price point. But nor has it matured or really reached mass-production levels. We also lack the deployment of proper infrastructure, which includes a balance of L2 and L3 public charging. It's not ready for the masses, but all the pieces exist. It takes time, money and patience to get there.

· · 1 year ago

Okay, been scanning through all this and not seeing the main point mentioned yet, in light of Reuters' promotion of the “promising new alternative power source: hydrogen.”

Put simply, hydrogen is NOT A POWER SOURCE, it is an ENERGY STORAGE MEDIUM. There's a world of difference. Fossil fuels are a power source - you dig them up out of the ground, set 'em on fire, and get more energy out than it took to deliver them. Wind is a power source, and captured solar energy, and nuclear fission, and ocean layer temperature differentials.

Pure hydrogen, by contrast, DOES NOT EXIST in our environment. It's all been combined with other elements in various compounds, mostly water. So to GENERATE hydrogen, you have to CONSUME ENERGY to separate it out of whatever it's in (e.g., electrolysis of water, refactoring of natural gas).

For the most part, whatever you're consuming to generate the hydrogen gas could be used more effectively if just put directly into a motor vehicle. Instead of using electricity to extract hydrogen from water and pump hydrogen into a car's storage tank, why not just use the electricity to charge a BEV? Similarly, instead of refactoring natural gas to produce hydrogen for fuel cells, why not just pump natural gas into a car's pressurized tank to be burned in its engine?

Hydrogen has never made much sense as a transportation fuel. I've long believed it's just a ruse by some auto and gas companies to distract the public from the more practical solutions at hand. The hydrogen fuel cell's sole advantage over a BEV's battery is that it can be replenished so quickly at a "fueling" station. That's a pretty small advantage in a world where most home garages either have or can easily get all the current they need to charge up an EV overnight.

· · 1 year ago

@vike1108 & automotive journalists everywhere - check out http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081898_hydrogen-from-artificial-pho.... BUT... As vike1108 points out, "hydrogen is NOT A POWER SOURCE, it is an ENERGY STORAGE MEDIUM." Even if the hydrogen source described by this article pans out - or the 'too cheap to measure' hydrogen produced by some nuclear fusion process that has been and remains today 20 (or 50) years away from commercialization - there are at least two more hurdles to be overcome for the wide spread introduction of fuel cell powered cars:
1. some process to produce low-cost, reliable fuel cells
2. the technology and infrastructure to store and distribute the hydrogen so produced.

P.S. It is a commentary on the sad state of automotive journalism that someone hasn't already borrowed the term 'vaporware' from computer technology to describe fuel cell powered cars.

· · 1 year ago

@Vike1108

Ageed, perhaps in 100 years some condition will change that will make hydrogen a very viable fuel source.... To date though, I don't see much transpiring in my lifetime. It exists naturally in the atmosphere, but to date, the easiest way to obtain it is from Gen 3+ Nuclear Plants... In view of the Black Eye Nuclear Power has desevedly gotten lately, I don't see any cheap hydrogen anytime soon. Currently its way more than double the price of Gasoline. So even if there were Cheap Hydrogen Cars (Fat Chance) I still don't understand who would buy them at the exhorbitant fueling cost. At Least EV's are 1/3 the price to run most of the time.

@Deckard

All of us don't hear enough from you, you always post intelligent postings. Even though its heresy here, I do consider myself a Big Environmentalist. Three days ago I went to a rally/protest protesting Hydraulic Horizontal Hydrofracking. This technique is very very damaging to the Environment, Well water, and its similar in destruction to Mountain Top Leveling of Coal Mining. (I would have no problem with the technique as long as there is no damage to the environs while it is occuring, and that the company Restores The Mountain after they are done. As always, I would greatly respect whatever the local people who lived there's opinion on the matter. Some areas dont want it at any cost. Others want it due to the jobs generated. Personally, I think the most responsible coal mining is still from a mine). Anyway I'm sure I was the only big fan of coal in general amoungst those protesting.... But I always mention that more CO2 is always beneficial, unless you're in the immediate vacinity of an exploding volcano and youre a small child or animal (CO2 tends to hug the ground in concentrations millions of times normal. Otherwise its in no way a pollutant, unless you also want to include Nitrous Oxide, Methane and the BIGGEST POLLUTANT, water, as greenhouse gasses. I always say anyone worried about greenhouse gasses should start by draining the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Of course, people criticizing me never say as much as BOO regarding the largest, most deadly industrial accident of all time, where there will ultimately be at least 3 million casualties, and might Destroy a Country (I'm of course talking about the 3 - "China Syndrome" melt down, then melt through ( into the earth below the plants) fukushima Daiichi Disaster March 2011, which is still ongoing, still uncontrolled radiation, and still killing).

Agenda 21 is the new world wide plan by the UN. (Actually the OLD Feudalism Plan where there are the Have's and the Have Nots). (Our Declaration of Independence was the only really new idea since the Magne Carta (sp?)).

@Brian Schwerdt

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I always carefully read your posts as well.

New to EVs? Start here

  1. Electric Cars Pros and Cons
    EVs are a great solution for most people. But not everybody.
  2. Seven Things To Know About Buying a Plug-In Car
    A few simple tips before you visit the dealership.
  3. Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars
    Take advantage of credits and rebates to reduce EV costs.
  4. Buying Your First Home EV Charger
    You'll want a home charger. Here's how to buy the right one.
  5. The Ultimate Guide to Electric Car Charging Networks
    If you plan to charge in public, you'll want to sign up for charging network membership (or two).
  6. Electric Vehicle Charging for Businesses
    How do you ensure that electric car owners will be happy with every visit to your charging spot?
  7. How to Use the PlugShare EV Charging Station Tool
    Locate EV charging stations and optimize their use with a powerful mobile app.
  8. Quick Charging of Electric Cars
    Add 50 to 60 miles of range in about 20 minutes. Here's how.
  9. The Real Price of EV Public Charging
    Compare the cost of charging on the road to what you pay at home.
  10. Electric Vehicle Charging Etiquette
    Thou shalt charge only when necessary. And other rules to live by.