Featured Hydrogen fuel a strong possibility?

Yes exactly! What are the winners we (here in the US) have chosen?

More importantly, should the entire world/planet follow out lead?

 

Ethanol, like used by the fuel cell I mention the previous paragraph, might be easier to get than electricity in some spots.

I only see fuel cells working with liquid fuels. Even the relatively low pressure tanks for CNG take up a lot of space in a car.

Yes, new technology has a development and adoption period. The successful ones we now all take for granted started out small, then grew. Electricity was only available in cities. The cell phone network started with beepers. Power tools had cords. Most examples of technology started out expensive.

Cars started out as toys for the wealthy. They ran on fuels that could be procured by the local general store. As the numbers of cars grew, those stores put in pumps. The straight fraction of gasoline off petroleum those cars used has an octane in the 40 to 60 range. The refining of gasoline into higher octanes didn't really start until cars were a common sight, and people wanted more performance.

FCEVs are expensive, but that will change as their numbers increase. The choice of hydrogen for fuel does not help that. It is not readily available, and getting enough of it into a car for an acceptable range, at a fast enough speed, requires expensive equipment and eats up more energy. If the first gasoline cars only ran on the highly refined gasoline cars use toady, they likely would not have been successful.

Perhaps something will come along that will make hydrogen for cars feasible. That something will make the current cars and stations being pushed for commercialization obsolete. Cars cost a whole lot more than video tape recorders, and choosing to back betamax didn't mean you had to stop watching your videos on it when VHS won.

Plug in advocate here, and I'm generally fine with how the current subsidies. My complaint with them is how they reward companies that waited to enter market. They should have had a set end date, or not have a limit per manufacturer. I would not be against ending the federal tax credit for plug ins today.

FCEVs are politically correct contender, at least in California. They get more money per car in subsidy, and regulations have been changed to exclude BEVs from the public funds. Fast refueling was redefined to exclude battery swapping after Tesla had a public demo station running, buyer incentives are now mean tested to limit the amount for alt fuel cars just above the price of current FCEVs.

And plug ins have beaten hydrogen cars. BEVs aren't the only choice. I view them as exercises in compromise, but PHEVs have been a bigger success than FCEVs while being available to the public for a shorter time.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by BEVs not getting public funds in CA.
All EVs get $2500 and some get even more.
There are also utility rebates.
You apply and get a check within a couple of months, it isn't a tax rebate...there are now some income limits.

Clean Vehicle Rebate Project | Center for Sustainable Energy

Mike

 

200 mm? 8 inches? Show me where that is documented.

Listen. And listen closely. This is PriusChat. We don't treat philosophy as casual. And analogies must meet certain requirements for being analogous. If posters don't want to follow these rules, the KIA forums are open to new members. LOLOLOLOLO. Or you can check out TESLA forums. Over there everyone is decoupled from reality.

 

Waiting to enter the market is what separates the winners from the losers in many cases. Later entry into the market is almost always a significant component in success.

 

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov

 

I said FCEVs get more. Double that of what a BEV is eligible for.

I see that ZEV credits are now based solely on a cars EV or hydrogen range. Previously, the amount was broken down into short range EV, long range EV, and FCEV. The FCEV earned more, before the bonus credits were added for having a fast refuel ability. It seems California's policies are starting to shift to be more tech neutral.

As currently structured, the federal tax credit gives those that wait an additional advantage. To begin with, waiting can mean getting the benefit of cost decreases brought about by the earlier entrants. No issue with that. It is the way things tend to work. The way the tax credit works means that those that waited have a additional discount on their product, on top of that natural cost reduction, over the first ones in.

 

As it should be.

A little glace back in history will tell you that the Model 3 is the Model A of BEVs.

 

If you care about averting catastrophic climate change, then we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. BEVs provide the most viable path to do that in the shortest time possible in the transportation sector. No other vehicle tech comes close.

Yes.

Europe tried the clean/biodiesel route and we've seen how that turned out (looking at you VW). Now both Europe and China are going heavy on EVs. Even India is betting big on EVs. At this point, we're going to be following everyone else's lead unless we kick EV production in the U.S. into high gear.

 

That is the big one all the alternatives have to fight against in the first place, due to it's long history, its availability and its lobbies.

As of today that is what we see. Although. I believe we need a lot more solar, wind and water to produce the fuel for a national sized BEV fleet.
I wouldn't harp on it anymore since I've already posted my thoughts on the grid size issue several times and I don't have numbers to quote and/or calculate.
Plus as has been mentioned, we have time to build out since the US is still addicted to fossil anyway and that doesn't look like it's going to change in the immediate future, unfortunately.

 

No realistic amount of BEV adoption is going to significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the next 10 years. There is just no way to "flip" the switch to a new technology on such a massive scale. Coal and natural gas (read: electricity production) is responsible for over 64% of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Transportation (cars/trucks/buses) only produce 22 percent of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. These reasons and other FACTS are why statements like yours are ill-informed, false, and irresponsible. Converting from coal to nuclear power for electricity would be a better plan. But it is not obtainable in the near future even if design started the day after labor day.

 

VW's actions point out the desperate steps people will go when the limits of technology are realized. Government could mandate HOV laws and reduce CO2. My employer, a large state facility, could require employees to use bus service to their remote location and trim literally thousands of trips per day. But they won't. These are hard problems.

If CO2 is such a threat, I suggest that sequestration technology be advanced, both at the industrial level and at the vehicle level. Like adding CATs to exhaust pipes, CO2 capture devices can be added to existing cars and the issue dealt with.

What is the world's largest source of CO2? It's not cars. It is the ocean.

 

if by the ocean you are referring the (ENTIRE) earth's crust - ⅔ being under water?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/amp/#ampshare=https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/
Ok
That doesn't say much for (man kind's) our piddly additions, does it ( not that this doesn't take us even more off of the hydrogen topic)
.

 

Sequestration by injecting CO2 into basalt formations, where most of it then turns into calcium carbonate, has shown some promise but is not ready for prime time. But carbon capture consumes a very noticeable fraction of the fuel's energy, reducing the net energy output per unit of fuel, thus needing more fuel for any given task. Given the falling costs of renewables, this cuts sharply into the economic viability of fossil fuels.

And mobile carbon capture will be a witch with its capture and storage equipment. A ten gallon fillup of gasoline, currently merely onloading 60 pounds of fuel, will also mean offloading 200 pounds of captured CO2. I suspect these issues would go a very long way towards pushing people over to BEVs.

My understanding is that the oceans are a net carbon sink, not source. So far. Rising water temperature could cause a problem with that.

The ocean and the carbon cycle — Science Learning Hub
"The ocean plays an important part in the carbon cycle. Overall, the ocean is called a carbon ‘sink’ because it takes up more carbon from the atmosphere than it gives up."

The Ocean’s Carbon Balance
"As we burn fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels go up, the ocean absorbs more carbon dioxide to stay in balance. But this absorption has a price: these reactions lower the water’s pH, meaning it’s more acidic."

 

Are you saying it is okay for an outside market force like a subsidy to give further advantage to a company that waited to enter the market beyond what natural market dynamics would give them? Even when the intention of that outside force is to foster the start of the market?

 

OK. I'll take the bait again and give my thoughts on some of yesterdays posts.
I have been called all kinds of names in the past here at PC for my early views on hydrogen as an alternative fuel. It's not something I enjoyed as a member of PC.
I understand some of the motivation behind the personal descriptiveness of posts and how we each have our own learning curves regarding new technologies.
I enjoy the fast pace of information flow here at PC, I don't enjoy being called names for my views. even if they are misinformed from another members point of view. I also don't like reading posts that call others names for the views they post here. Well most of the time, anyways.....especially the hot bed topics that have a baring on where humanity might be headed in the near or far future. I'ts just way immature from my perspective.
There I said it.
Have a great holiday weekend