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..

Originally Posted by p1l0t (Post 3277267)

If you have a 2k mi range though charging at home once a week it's practical.. (or buy a Tesla tractor truck and just drive it bobtail as a commuter/apartment?)

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3277270)

Not if it takes days to do it. A Model S charges at a rate of 170 miles in 30 minutes on a L3 charger, so that would be 5 hours to reach 2,000 miles on supercharger.

A level 2 home charger does at best 50 miles of range per hour, so 40 hours.

Reference here.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3277329)

I think you guys are creating more of a problem than what exists. The car meets the needs of the masses, but not everyone. No one is claiming anything different.

The average person drives 30 miles a day:

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new...torists-drive/

The time to recharge that 30 miles on a V3 Supercharger is around 3 minutes. Faster than most people spend in line at Starbucks every morning.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mot...er-tested/amp/

If someone doesn’t want to install a 240v outlet then the 120v will add 3-5 miles of range per hour, which is 8-10 hours of charging for 30 miles. A 240v socket like that of a dryer or stove from an older home will add 22 miles of range per hour, so it would take 1.5 hours to add 30 miles. Again, for the vast majority of people, this meets their daily needs.

https://teslatap.com/articles/tesla-...harging-guide/