Ford Mach-E

[spike021]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

I'm holding out for Nuclear Fusion so 1 drop of fuel can last me 17 years.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by spike021

Mr. Fusion powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor. But the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline, it always has....Without gasoline, we can't get the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour.

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You Me.



But, you're right lol.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

"But the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline, it always has....Without gasoline, we can't get the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour."

Ummmm

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Toyota n others put big $$$ into the tech. Toyota has all the money to make it successful if it was going to be adopted. The big problem is making fuel stations, which is much harder than installing chargers. Hydrogen is ok in general but the efficiency makes it silly compared to just charging batteries. The real benefit is range, but that problem of electric cars will likely be resolved before hydrogen would ever take off.

Why is it harder to install hydrogen fuel stations than electric charging stations?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

We sound like buggy whip manufacturers

To some extent, but personally I don't feel that way. I have no particular love for ICE, my passion is two and four wheel vehicles. As I said earlier, to me its no different than gasoline vs diesel. When it meets my 100% needs in terms of fuel delivery, I move one to performance, looks and value, and not particularly in that order.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

"But the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline, it always has....Without gasoline, we can't get the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour."

Ummmm

That one runs on steam—not Mr Fusion.

https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/w...ain/Time_Train

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

To some extent, but personally I don't feel that way. I have no particular love for ICE, my passion is two and four wheel vehicles. As I said earlier, to me its no different than gasoline vs diesel. When it meets my 100% needs in terms of fuel delivery, I move one to performance, looks and value, and not particularly in that order.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That one runs on steam—not Mr Fusion.

https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/w...ain/Time_Train

Not an internal combustion engine.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Why is it harder to install hydrogen fuel stations than electric charging stations?

But getting those fill-ups presents the biggest obstacle. Fueling stations cost up to $2 million to build, so companies have been reluctant to build them unless more fuel cell cars are on the road. But automakers don't want to build cars that consumers can't fuel.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...upslowlyon.amp

...Compare that to electric chargers, which are no different for businesses than it is for homes:

For a Level 1 charger, the cost of the station will be $300 to $600, with parts and labor costing $1,000 to $1,700, according to HomeAdvisor. A Level 2 charger will cost a bit more: The station will cost roughly $500 to $700, and the parts and labor will likely cost $1,200 to $2,000.

https://www.realtor.com/advice/home-...hicle-charger/

Superchargers are a different story:

According to a UBS report published in early 2017, the cost to build a supercharging station is a cool $250,000.

Who knows if the cost has gone down or if most of the cost includes the purchase of the land.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not an internal combustion engine.

Sorry. Im missing the joke or your point.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...upslowlyon.amp

...Compare that to electric chargers, which are no different for businesses than it is for homes:



https://www.realtor.com/advice/home-...hicle-charger/

Superchargers are a different story:



Who knows if the cost has gone down or if most of the cost includes the purchase of the land.

I should rephrase. Why is it harder to support 100 hydrogen-powered vehicles than 100 battery-powered vehicles?

Assuming both stations (assuming supercharger) are built from scratch, not using conveniently placed filling station locations we have all over the country/world, and that each "station" fuels one vehicle at a time, then you would have to build, what, 10-20 battery charging stations for each hydrogen fueling station to match that capacity. Big picture math doesn't add up for batteries here.

Plus, consumers can stop for hydrogen anytime, rather than have to sit and wait for an hour or more (time is money after all). Hydrogen can be produced at a consistent rate and dispensed as needed, where you would find surges on travel days with batteries (assuming you could find an open charger at just the right time).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I should rephrase. Why is it harder to support 100 hydrogen-powered vehicles than 100 battery-powered vehicles?

Assuming both stations (assuming supercharger) are built from scratch, not using conveniently placed filling station locations we have all over the country/world, and that each "station" fuels one vehicle at a time, then you would have to build, what, 10-20 battery charging stations for each hydrogen fueling station to match that capacity. Big picture math doesn't add up for batteries here.

Plus, consumers can stop for hydrogen anytime, rather than have to sit and wait for an hour or more (time is money after all). Hydrogen can be produced at a consistent rate and dispensed as needed, where you would find surges on travel days with batteries (assuming you could find an open charger at just the right time).

That’s a different question—not a rephrase—but yea, assuming all the infrastructure was in place, then hydrogen fuel would be faster to charge than current superchargers. Electric has the advantage of ease of charging at home, so this is more about convenience for refueling/recharging for long commutes that require maximum recharging. If we are being hypothetical then battery swapping could be just as fast or faster, and version two or three superchargers and equivalent future batteries could have faster charging, possibly adding 100 miles or more in five minutes.

In terms of utilities, we would need more utilities to do the same job because hydrogen is inherently less efficient than electric, as well as, the processing plants to produce the hydrogen and shipping for the hydrogen fuel to the stations.

The numbers favor electric, which is probably why electric greatly exceed hydrogen cars.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That’s a different question—not a rephrase—but yea, assuming all the infrastructure was in place, then hydrogen fuel would be faster to charge than current superchargers. Electric has the advantage of ease of charging at home, so this is more about convenience for refueling/recharging for long commutes that require maximum recharging. If we are being hypothetical then battery swapping could be just as fast or faster, and version two or three superchargers and equivalent future batteries could have faster charging, possibly adding 100 miles or more in five minutes.

In terms of utilities, we would need more utilities to do the same job because hydrogen is inherently less efficient than electric, as well as, the processing plants to produce the hydrogen and shipping for the hydrogen fuel to the stations.

The numbers favor electric, which is probably why electric greatly exceed hydrogen cars.

It's essentially the same question, but that's not important.

With hydrogen, you don't need to charge at home. I get along just fine stopping by the gas station when I need to. Plus, right now, in 2019, it works, as-is, no further mad science projects needed. I don't need to be hypothetical if the technology is already there. It got this far even without some billionaire playboy cultist "leading" the way. The only hypothetical statement is what could have been if he had been promoting hydrogen vehicles instead. Or just not done anything.

If you really need to fuel up at home, generating hydrogen is actually pretty easy. First Google result from 2016, IDK how it's going, but it had similar amounts of speculation as you are suggesting, and that was 3 years ago. Bottom line, $2K for a home unit that should be more than you need for a car.

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...ings-cars.html

Hydrogen may be less efficient due to energy conversion, but they are more efficient in terms of kinetic energy. A hydrogen-powered car does not need to rely on a massive battery to get decent range.

I'm assuming by numbers you mean sales/people. Why do people buy designer handbags, or fancy shoes, or Starbucks coffee? It's all a status symbol, and completely influenced by marketing. I can give you a few great examples of times when popularity of an idea wasn't an indication of the soundness of said idea.

If EVs are the right solution, why do you suppose real car companies like Toyota are still investing in hydrogen vehicle technology?