Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
evnow said:
LOL - after all these years you are still pushing fool cells !
I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it. That recommendation is subject to change based on technical/price improvements over time, just like any other product. At the moment, batteries are best for shorter range tasks like commuting and pickup and delivery, where you return to the same location and have a dedicated place to charge on a daily basis.
A tech like FCEVs (or ICEs) with longer range and faster refueling is better suited to tasks that require those characteristics, such as road trips, and cabs can go either way depending on the specifics. Which is one reason why I'm a fan of PHFCEVs, as they cover both tasks using the most efficient ZEV tech (in energy
and time) for the different tasks. And of course, the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure has to be available in either case.
That right there is pushing fuel cells. With the model 3 and soon model y, there's zero justification to consider any other fuel type except for the most extreme road-trip cases.
Nope. Since a fair portion of the public sometimes make those road trips, and wants a car capable of them in any case, providing a ZEV that can do so is necessary, because they obviously aren't ready to accept the current capability of BEVs without being bribed/forced to do so. After all, every generation of BEVs has increased both battery capacity and charging rate, but we're still only at 2.3% take rate nationwide, around 8% in California, despite perks and subsidies, and sales have stagnated (PEV sales down Y-o-Y for July, August and September; IEVS is changing to a quarterly report so hasn't given numbers for October, but for Sep. sales were 33,128 vs. 44,544 a year ago; the Model 3 sold 19,100 vs. 22,250 last Sep.).
FCEVs remain even less cost-effective in the long-term at the moment due to high fuel costs, which (along with the vehicle cost and lack of infrastructure) would have to be improved before they can achieve mass market acceptance. But their operational characteristics are essentially the same as ICEs now, so we know the general public will be comfortable with them given the necessary improvements noted above. No BEV can say the same yet.
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Mind you, you once advocated for fuel cells, because the damage from diesel was so bad that we absolutely had to get rid of fossil fuels at ALL costs.
I
supported (and support) any ZEV or at least zero-carbon tech that has the potential to get us off fossil fuels soonest, BEVs and fuel cells being two of them, and will recommend whichever one best fits the specific operational requirements. In the case of over-the-road trucking, that's FCEVs for now, but P&D and (shorter distribution runs) are a good match for pure BEV capability. Local/express buses can go either way depending on requirements, emergency vehicles shouldn't be BEVs, and so on.
Similarly, if someone needs a car primarily for shorter-range commuting, then a BEV is probably right for them if they have convenient, dedicated charging. If not, then an FCEV may be a better fit, and for an all-around ZEV, I believe a PHFCEV with the stack used as a fuel extender is generally the best-suited given the necessary infrastructure to support both modes (with improvements as above). If BEVs, their price. infrastructure and operational characteristics improve to the point that the general public is willing to accept them for all-around use, great.
Note that the above ignores the possible effects of resource limitations on both techs which may retard or limit their growth, which is another reason why I think we should proceed with both, as their critical resource requirements aren't identical.
