rcm4453
Well-known member
GRA said:Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels. As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs. I too want to see us reduce our GHGs as speedily as possible, but the quickest cheapest way to do that right now is with HEVs followed by PHEVs, not BEVs. You can have the most ideal tech in the world, but if customers won't buy it (without massive bribes), you will fail to achieve the transition you seek. It remains to be seen whether 200 miles EPA (which I consider a real-world 135 when new) will cross the threshold to mainstream acceptance, given the lack of charging infrastructure in much of the world. But I have no doubt whatever that, given the necessary cost reductions and the fueling infrastructure, FCEVs will be acceptable to the general public. We know they will be, because they virtually duplicate the capabilities that most people have found perfectly acceptable for the past century.Stoaty said:Call me when FCEV are a fossil fuel free transportation technology. BEV can be fossil fuel free now if you have solar power or purchase only renewable power from your electric utility (mine is fossil fuel free in operation, though not in the manufacturing part yet). My guess is that FCEV could hit the mark in 20-30 years, which is time we don't have if we care about maintaining a livable climate for future generations. We need rapid deployment of carbon free technologies NOW:GRA said:Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/10/3776465/everything-you-know-climate-change-solutions-outdated/
FCEVs are like ICE vehicles in that the general population finds them acceptable isn't saying all that much. Why make a lateral move like that? Why not focus on moving up to a superior tech? Why waste resources on a tech that's no better then what we have now? Why reinvent the wheel? Start back at square one? Keep using what we have now and focus on advancing BEV tech until it reaches parity with ICE tech. BEVs have much more potential then FCEVs ever will due to the laws of physics. Yes, H2 can be renewable, and it may be in other countries but not here. It won't be here for the simple fact that it's less efficient and costs more to do it that way. About 95% of hydrogen in the US is made from natural gas in large central plants, according to the Department of Energy. It’s a method called natural gas reforming. How is this any better then using gasoline? It's definitely not as renewable as using solar or wind to charge a BEV at home!
Here's a good read if you're interested, has some data to back up many of my points:
http://www.energypost.eu/toyota-vs-tesla-can-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compete-electric-vehicles/
This one is more in depth about hydrogen:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/