Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3276868)

In general, EVs will save ICEs. They will lower emission averages and raise fuel economy averages across fleets while reducing the demand/cost of fuel. This allows manufacturers to meet their mandates.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3276899)

Of course, it's not like Ford hasn't done something similar in the past. The Thunderbird is a good example. What started off as a nice two-door sports car/roadster eventually became a 4 door behemoth. They scaled it up basically to protect the Mustang so maybe what goes around comes around.

At least the 4-door Thunderbird had suicide doors, so there was some redeeming coolness in that.

Originally Posted by dowroa (Post 3276897)

Right, but I think there is a mandate that each "model" must also meet standards with exceptions only allowed for very specific reasons.

I will look this up later to provide more facts.

However, if it is the case that the exception cannot be used (or not desired to be used) for the "Mustang" any longer, then just throw in something that will get 150 eMPG into the same model and bam -- you have satisfied the `rules`.

I think there is more to the naming than just word-of-mouth hype.

Originally Posted by bcj (Post 3276945)

In '58? Wait, wut?

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277008)

Reinvent the battery, save the world.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3277017)

Yep, 300 mile range that fully recharges in less than 15 minutes, I'm all in. Anything less than that, not so much.

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277019)

Oh, so you want a hydrogen fuel cell?

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3277030)

That has always been my first choice for alternative fuels.

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277050)

Yeah, if as much resources and infrastructure money had gone into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as Tesla et al have put into chemical battery vehicles, I'd probably have one in my garage right now.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277080)

before hydrogen would ever take off.

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277055)

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

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by spike021 (Post 3277103)

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277113)

:bonk:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277113)

:bonk:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277080)

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.

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2 (Post 3277049)

We sound like buggy whip manufacturers

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3277117)

"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

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DependentF...restricted.gif

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3277133)

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.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277135)

That one runs on steam—not Mr Fusion.

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

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277130)

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

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 3277137)

Not an internal combustion engine.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277147)

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.

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277159)

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).

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277165)

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.

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277179)

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

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277209)

4. It is either a status symbol theory, or the infrastructure isn't in place to make hydrogen cars popular/feasible; where anyone who has a home could charge an electric car, which is the other theory for why they are so successful. Superchargers only exist to allow for far distance travel for people who want to travel far distances in a Tesla or who have no other car in their household (most families do), or they are for people without access to a home charger or a close standard charger.

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277136)

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3277241)

You lost me with this one....

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277243)

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277151)

Sorry. Im missing the joke or your point.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277209)

1. Ehh, the Elon anecdotes are getting old. The hypothetical is with speculating about how these two techs compare when the infrastructure doesn't exist and getting there could be the biggest obstacle. It isn't like California, for instance, isn't trying, and there is no reason why Toyota couldn't make their own stations, except the investment would be large:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrog...#North_America

2. That is cool if it works out someday, but it seems far less convenient to create hydrogen at home then have to use it to charge a car battery, when charging a battery directly would take two seconds to plug in a charger. I already do that now with my trickle charger for my Braille battery, as well as, my phone and laptop. What's one more thing?

3. I don't get your point? The Toyota Mirai weighs 4078lbs. The Model 3 weighs 3552-4072lbs. The Mirai has a battery, motor, a hydrogen cell and a hydrogen to electric converter, so yes, a smaller battery, but more stuff. There is less space in the hydrogen car; there is less safety in crash tests; there is less performance (0-60 of 9.0s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3

4. It is either a status symbol theory, or the infrastructure isn't in place to make hydrogen cars popular/feasible; where anyone who has a home could charge an electric car, which is the other theory for why they are so successful. Superchargers only exist to allow for far distance travel for people who want to travel far distances in a Tesla or who have no other car in their household (most families do), or they are for people without access to a home charger or a close standard charger.

5. "Real car companies." Is there really a need for these stabs or insulting anecdotes? They get old. Toyota is investing in hydrogen for many reasons. For one thing, they already have invested in the technology, so it behooves them to try and make it work than cutting their losses. They could also be doing it because that is what could work in places like Japan or in some markets. Why aren't they working on electric? Because they already know how to make electric because they have been making hybrids forever, so maybe they don't believe the hype or tech is there (others do). Maybe they don't want to buck their current practices until the last minute when they will then dive into the market. Maybe they are quietly working on their tech, and they will wait for the batteries to reach more mileage or be cheaper. Volvo, VW and others do believe the hype, which is why they are plunging into development.

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277243)

https://www.ice.gov/

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277260)

1. You just showed that the investment for hydrogen infrastructure is smaller than it was for batteries alone.



2. It's far more convenient to not need to create hydrogen at home than it is to install home charging infrastructure. Not everyone can get a type 2 charger, and type 1s aren't going to cut it by my quick estimate. Even a type 2 might be too slow in some situations.



3. The Mirai uses NiMH batteries and a motor designed for use in conjunction with an gas engine to power the car. It's a large-scale test bed, not an optimized solution. I need to check in on the 2021 version, I hear that's much better in some ways.



4. Dadhawk's response is about what I would say.



5. Volvo, VW, and others are catering to market hype. If battery vehicles are what consumers want, boy can they pump out some battery vehicles and make a quick buck. The fact that Toyota and others continue to invest is indicative of a good, competitive solution that just doesn't have the marketing behind it. Nobody is seriously investing in solar powered or even wind-powered cars (sails) because those are simply bad solutions.

Originally Posted by Spuds (Post 3277260)

2. It's far more convenient to not need to create hydrogen at home than it is to install home charging infrastructure. Not everyone can get a type 2 charger, and type 1s aren't going to cut it by my quick estimate. Even a type 2 might be too slow in some situations..