So what you are saying is that people who buy Tesla's like them. Interesting.

Two points:

1) as long as it's market driven bring it on, EVs, better batteries, etc.

2) hydrogen fuel cells are the ultimate goal

Got a hybrid, works like a charm.

45-53 mpg.

Hydrogen requires more electricity and infrastructure build to be productive than electric vehicles. It might be viable for trucking, it's never going to be a replacement for the vast majority of vehicles. Nikola got awarded money by California to build out hydrogen fuel stations and it costs >10x as much as Tesla spends on Superchargers.

That technology would improve just like EVs have. "Never" is a very long time.

nortex97 said:

---

I try to avoid discussing Tesla's specifically because their fans are very emotional about any doubt or criticism.

---

I see you again want to ignore the data. The reason to use Tesla battery data is because they have by far the most data. I would also point out these are batteries from 4-7 years ago and they have continued to improve them with a lot longer range and new chemistry. If you have data from Ford that shows they fail after the warranty (or regularly fail during the warranty), we would love to see it.

Also remember, a warranty isn't about how long something will last, it is a marketing tool. The manufacturer sets it as short as possible while giving the customer comfort the product isn't a lemon. If a car company could sell a car with no warranty, they would not because they don't believe in the product but because there is cost to a warranty.

When you're fighting against physics you're going to lose. The problem with hydrogen is the amount of energy it requires in order to create and store the hydrogen as compared to the amount of energy that is lost when charging a battery. You're starting with the same input (electricity) and inherently losing it in the process of creating hydrogen and there's no pathway to resolving that problem. The cost of hydrogen right now is comparable to gasoline on a per-mile basis, whereas a BEV gets about 3-4x the range per dollar so a person buying a hydrogen car is getting no cost benefit on the ownership of the vehicle and they have to deal with the inconvenience of not having many fueling stations. There are next to none in the United States outside of California, and there's no option to produce hydrogen at home.

BEVs are a self-funding technology. There are current companies that get net returns on the sale of vehicles excluding government incentives that allow it to improve, and improve rapidly. Hydrogen fuel cells do not exist in that market environment. Never for consumer vehicles is the right answer. Maybe for trucking, maybe for airplanes, but not your car.

Watch this video:


If you're still unconvinced watch this one:


ChatGPT summary of the issues:

Quote:

---

Production Losses: Hydrogen production through methods like steam reforming and electrolysis involves significant energy losses. Steam reforming requires high heat and is inefficient, resulting in hydrogen with less energy content than the natural gas used. Electrolysis, although more efficient, still leads to around a 20-30% energy loss.

Transport and Storage Losses: Transporting and storing hydrogen as a gas or liquid incurs additional losses. Compressing hydrogen requires about 13% of its energy content, and liquefying it involves an efficiency loss of 40%, considering the energy needed for refrigeration.

Delivery Losses: Transporting hydrogen from production to end-use points via truck or pipeline leads to energy losses ranging from 10% to 40%. In comparison, electricity transmission losses for charging batteries are relatively low, around 5%.

Fuel Cell Conversion: Converting hydrogen back into electric power through fuel cells is not fully efficient. While fuel cells can achieve up to 60% efficiency, some energy is lost as heat during the process.

When these various energy losses are combined, the overall efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell systems can be notably lower compared to the energy losses associated with battery-powered electric vehicles.

---

The end conclusion of the video is that hydrogen fuel cells will cost about 3.5x to fill up as compared to a BEV in an optimistic scenario, but currently, they're closer to 8x.

I agree that's the current technology.

Things change. There are natural sources for hydrogen.

Again, "never" is a very long time. If you mean in our lifetime, you may be correct.

I'm old enough to know that never say never...

Hydrogen as a fuel obviously works for a lot of purposes, like, oh, the sun, or rockets, but the energy density ultimately doesn't work for most auto applications, certainly not anytime soon, as it would require…plentiful cheap nuclear electricity to make it, for starters. But the energy density of it when actually stored in a pressure vessel in a car…is problematic.

Link to an old discussion that included it. Canyon and goatzche or something are the source of the discussion/analyses really;

Quote:

---

Electricity is the worst way to store energy. Hydrogen is second.

A PEM electrolysis unit will give you about 20 kg of H2 per MWh. So at cheap electric prices, it theoretically could compete. But the devil is in the details.

Those pushing the H2 agenda will often brag about its energy density. It is true, that H2 is very energy dense on a mass basis. 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of H2 contains approximately the energy of 1 gallon (~8 lbs) of gasoline. Looks good, right?

But when it comes to transportation fuels and the infrastructure to move the fuels around, mass doesn't matter, volume does. This is true for storage tanks, pipelines, pumps, compressors, etc. And that is where H2 is a big loser.

At 1000psig of pressure, that 1 kg of H2 takes up almost 50 gallons of space. Even at 10,000psig, it is still going to occupy 7 gallons of space.

So, you can't compress your way to the volume energy density of gasoline (and compressing H2 is very inefficient/expensive), so you liquefy it, right? That's what some propose.

Well, liquefaction has its own challenges. The main one, of course, is how cold you have to get. We're talking 21K to liquefy H2. If you're not familiar with Kelvin, 21K equals -422F. Oh, and even when liquefied, that 1 kg of H2 is still going to occupy over 3 gallons of space.

---

In truth, neither EV's nor hydrogen make much sense at all as a replacement for modern ICE engines in cars, economically, practically, and definitely environmentally.

A lot of police departments have found EVs to be a lot of cheaper than ICE. I think most fleet vehicle uses have shown to be a lot cheaper due to lower fuel and maintenance costs.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-westport-police-department-financial-analysis/amp/

Some on here will never/may not believe it but from my 80k/3 yr experience, I have (compared to my wife's Odessy) saved gas 6.5k + Oil change 1K + Brakes $ 1500. My car has had zero maintenance since I got it and only paid for tires/wipers.

Such fleet usage (especially in moderate climates) is very atypical from most drivers personal vehicles. Service departments, training, not parked within dwellings, often idling for extended periods (police vehicles have very heavy alternators etc), this is not real surprising.

Also part of the reason the ancient Crown Victoria was a preferred vehicle for decades after it fell out of (limited) popularity for instance in private usage.

There are also police departments/roles (Dallas PD comes to mind) that beat the everliving heck out of their vehicles driving over curbs etc. (why Ford refused to keep selling them CV's), where an EV would be a crazy decision.

Maintenance and operation cost are the biggest cost saving areas we see. Car owners don't have the same downtime requirements but companies are making profits a lot sooner than they used to

nortex97 said:

---

In truth, neither EV's nor hydrogen make much sense at all as a replacement for modern ICE engines in cars, economically, practically, and definitely environmentally.

---

There will come a time I suspect in your lifetime where gasoline prices will become uncomfortably expensive. And this will likely happen suddenly. Certainly our kids kids will live in a very different world where perhaps a larger portion of electricity generation will come from nuclear. For us, we never had to deal with that so we can't see this happening on our horizon. So it makes sense that some people are thinking about the next thing.

The era of petroleum will likely come and go in a two hundred year span. We are in the second century now.

PS: Drake's well was drilled in 1859. That is the start of the US petroleum business. A business centered around an immense but finite resource. And as an aside, the first AC generation plant was built at Niagara Falls in 1893. So who knows what things will be like in 2093?? My youngest grandchild will be 70 in 2093.

Yes, much of that is correct, I suppose. And the first copper zinc battery from Volta was around 1800. Wet electrode batteries with lithium in them are not new in concept, at all, and the advances in metallurgy since the WW2 era have improved them, but they are still incredibly toxic. And EV's themselves portend…the continued need for petroleum products, which is why it's so funny when EV fans claim otherwise. At least a hundred barrels of crude are needed to make a modern BEV, and realistically a lot more if you include that needed to mine/process the materials for the battery. Pretty much every BEV in Texas is mostly charged with energy from petroleum. Moving to more of them will require more grid investment (metals/chargers etc) needing more electricity/hydrocarbons to make and power it.

And again, it's always been the snobby urban transportation power plant of the 'rich' elite in marketing:



Simplicity, speed, technology, sophistication, ease of maintenance, social prestige…that sounds familiar.

Who knows, it's inevitable for older guys/people to lament new things, but none of us really would want a Motorola flip phone or simple rotary phones either, let alone telegrams etc. I'm older than the microchip, myself, and I'm glad that tech has advanced…a bit in my lifetime.

But the simple fact remains that for now basically it is true that electricity and hydrogen are poor substitutes for the storage of energy for a car vs. hydrocarbons for an ICE engine. Why even chop off the C from CH2, just to store it at a cold temperature under pressure?

But people playing around with it to advance a market I like happening. I do wish there weren't the obvious political/nefarious motivations for it, however.

Model S price just reduced to $75,000. The Model S was $88,000 in 2012. Adjusting that figure by the inflation rate that's equivalent to $118,000 in 2023. Matching the rate of price increase for the average automobile from 2012 to today (~54%) it would be ~$135,000.

Significant reduction in prices/cost while adding 105 miles (35%) of range over the last decade.

Additionally Tesla announced their refreshed Model 3 in Asian and European markets. Range increased by 12% (if that holds in the U.S. it'd be around 305 miles for the standard range model and 375 miles for the long range variant). Added rear screen, ventilated seats, upgraded sound system, ambient lighting and new styling that improves aerodynamics resulting in an 8% efficiency gain. Price increase in Asian markets was 8-12%. In Europe it only increased by 2.4%. If 2.4% holds in the U.S. the Model 3 will be priced 7% above its introductory price with an additional 65 miles of range. Well below the 33% increase in average new car price over the same period and broad inflation of 25%.

Electric vehicles are not going to be more expensive than gas forever. It's not always going to take 20 minutes to recharge to 80%.

Quote:

---

Electric vehicles are not going to be more expensive than gas forever. It's not always going to take 20 minutes to recharge to 80%.

---

No prob. If true, then even more reason to eliminate ANY governmental assistance or encouragement..

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Electric vehicles are not going to be more expensive than gas forever. It's not always going to take 20 minutes to recharge to 80%.

---

No prob. If true, then even more reason to eliminate ANY governmental assistance or encouragement..

---

It's fine to charge a battery very quickly, even a huge battery, but there is always going to be a cost to doing so. If it were easy, we'd be capturing lot's of electrical energy via lightning strikes and storing it in capacitors for grid usage. It remains true that trickle charges are 'gentler' on the battery's wear and tear so to speak, to put it in layman terms.

There is going to 'always' remain a trade off in 'capability' vs. 'longevity,' at least as long as we are dealing with wet electrolyte batteries. Going 'plaid' has an impact, whether it is the ICE vehicle or another/EV.

But, but, but, this old guy drives his Lightning back and forth into town all the time like the Clampetts in Beverly Hillbillies. I have no issues with my very large golf cart that I can throw 20 bags of mulch into the back. And haul. It's a fun vehicle.

Yes, and charging curves are…complicated. The lightning basically takes 45 minutes to charge up on a level 3 charger, from 15 percent, but that's not in any way a linear process a la fluid flow.

nortex97 said:

---

Such fleet usage (especially in moderate climates) is very atypical from most drivers personal vehicles. Service departments, training, not parked within dwellings, often idling for extended periods (police vehicles have very heavy alternators etc), this is not real surprising.

Also part of the reason the ancient Crown Victoria was a preferred vehicle for decades after it fell out of (limited) popularity for instance in private usage.

There are also police departments/roles (Dallas PD comes to mind) that beat the everliving heck out of their vehicles driving over curbs etc. (why Ford refused to keep selling them CV's), where an EV would be a crazy decision.

---

LOL, those damned crown vics should be contracted out and remanufactured.

that somehow was the most reliable, cost effective consumer transportation platform in history, and plenty heavy duty enough for severe law enforcement duty.

they REGULARLY go 500k miles with basic maintenance and rarely any problems. frankly incredible for the price. if people put the math against THAT platform, holy ****, everything else loses big.

cbr said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Such fleet usage (especially in moderate climates) is very atypical from most drivers personal vehicles. Service departments, training, not parked within dwellings, often idling for extended periods (police vehicles have very heavy alternators etc), this is not real surprising.

Also part of the reason the ancient Crown Victoria was a preferred vehicle for decades after it fell out of (limited) popularity for instance in private usage.

There are also police departments/roles (Dallas PD comes to mind) that beat the everliving heck out of their vehicles driving over curbs etc. (why Ford refused to keep selling them CV's), where an EV would be a crazy decision.

---

LOL, those damned crown vics should be contracted out and remanufactured.

that somehow was the most reliable, cost effective consumer transportation platform in history, and plenty heavy duty enough for severe law enforcement duty.

they REGULARLY go 500k miles with basic maintenance and rarely any problems. frankly incredible for the price. if people put the math against THAT platform, holy ****, everything else loses big.

---

And bring back the old school Lincoln Town Car, one of my all time favorite rentals. It does fine driving over curbs and the emergency brake release was located within reach to allow for J-turn to be executed.

These are good suggestions. The Panther platform was a beast. I actually considered getting a marauder at the end.

nortex97 said:

---

These are good suggestions. The Panther platform was a beast. I actually considered getting a marauder at the end.

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Electric vehicles are not going to be more expensive than gas forever. It's not always going to take 20 minutes to recharge to 80%.

---

No prob. If true, then even more reason to eliminate ANY governmental assistance or encouragement..

---

I agree that the government needs to get out of the capital market.

I just wonder why there isn't the same fervor when GM/Stellantis was bailed out. What about the recent 9.2Bil Ford low interest loan to build battery factories in partnership with a chinese company?

Should we now not buy any legacy cars b/c how the government essentially kept/keeping their companies from going bankrupt?

nortex97 said:

---

These are good suggestions. The Panther platform was a beast. I actually considered getting a marauder at the end.

---

Yep. MGM's and Crown Vics just run, and run, and run with very little in the way of BS expensive repairs.

RIP body--on-frame sedans.

You think people should be equally mad at bailouts that happened 15 years ago as they are about the government forcing the phase out of ICEs? Holy whataboutism batman!

I really don't care about 15 yrs ago but the 9.2 Bil "bailout" was 2 months ago for a company that made 20Bil in profit last year. But that just doesn't fit the "hate" tesla Narrative so lets just forget about that little 9Bil bailout that will indirectly fund ICE profits.

Missed another 12Bil in grants/low interest loans to legacy to save them from Bankruptcy although they are having one of the most profitable years in their history.

So we agree that no company should receive a dime to help produce EVs. What's your point? That we should all refuse to buy fords because the company isnt stupid enough to turn down cheap money when the government is willing to pass it out?

The government should **** off and stop trying to make EVs happen before the market is ready. It's not Fords fault that the market is being manipulated and they're forced to adapt.

ChemAg15 said:

---

So we agree that no company should receive a dime to help produce EVs. What's your point? That we should all refuse to buy fords because the company isnt stupid enough to turn down cheap money when the government is willing to pass it out?

The government should **** off and stop trying to make EVs happen before the market is ready. It's not Fords fault that the market is being manipulated and they're forced to adapt.

---

I think his point is that the big automakers and their unions have repeatedly been bailed out making ICE vehicles over the years so why do people only whine about the EV subsidies. They should all be done away with and the big 3 automakers should have all gone through Ch 11 and their unions seen their oversized benefits slashed like everyone else that works for a Ch 11 company.

Maybe all you diesel fans really should consider a Tesla.

https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/tesla-interstate-5-supercharger-power-plant-18343119.php

Quote:

---

Tesla's dirty little secret on California's I-5

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger has a couple of things going for it that have made it a part of Tesla enthusiasts' lore: It's one of the electric car giant's first Supercharger stations, and with 98 charging bays, it's also the biggest in the world.

The Central California charging station is such a big deal that Tesla clubs even make it an appointment destination. Yes, they'll rally-style drive to it just to honor its lineage and size.

But as with many Tesla-related things, there is a secret, thinly obscured by an Oz-like curtain, at the Harris Ranch Supercharger. Hidden in plain sight across the way from the Harris Ranch Supercharger's main stations, behind a Shell station, is a small diesel plant that has helped power Tesla's footprint.

---

torrid said:

---

Maybe all you diesel fans really should consider a Tesla.

https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/tesla-interstate-5-supercharger-power-plant-18343119.php

Quote:

---

Tesla's dirty little secret on California's I-5

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger has a couple of things going for it that have made it a part of Tesla enthusiasts' lore: It's one of the electric car giant's first Supercharger stations, and with 98 charging bays, it's also the biggest in the world.

The Central California charging station is such a big deal that Tesla clubs even make it an appointment destination. Yes, they'll rally-style drive to it just to honor its lineage and size.

But as with many Tesla-related things, there is a secret, thinly obscured by an Oz-like curtain, at the Harris Ranch Supercharger. Hidden in plain sight across the way from the Harris Ranch Supercharger's main stations, behind a Shell station, is a small diesel plant that has helped power Tesla's footprint.

---

---

Hilarious.

Why? Most Tesla drives don't care where the electricity comes from.

Teslag said:

---

Why? Most Tesla drives don't care where the electricity comes from.

---

big facts LMAO!