Darell
Flashaholic
Thanks for dropping by, idle.
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
promise of fuel cells once vehicles get smaller and lighter after relieved of the combustion engine burden.
[/ QUOTE ]This is one of the classic "poor comparison" issues that are put on the table daily. Here you effectively state that a FCV of the future will be better than a BEV of the past. I think I've stated here before that today's production EVs (and by the way none of them are rated below 100 miles, so I'm not sure what you're reading for the 50 mile range) are at least 10-year-old technology. Current EVs (not production since they are not IN production) have a real-world 300 mile range capability along with fast charging. If large auto compainies were to really want this (like they say they want FCV) then we'd be somewhere. There is no way anybody (including FCV supporters!) can imagine a FC vehicle that is higher performance or cheaper to produce than a pure battery EV. If the same effort and money was put into battery development as is now being put into FC research, then we'd have a fair race, and I know where my money would be! In the past six years, we have increased battery energy density by about 6 times! That isn't going to happen with fuel cells.
Let's put it another way. FCV research has been going on far longer and with far more monies spent than Battery Electric research. And today, with no industry backing, we have a battery electric car that will do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, and travel 300 miles on a charge. That particular vehicle cost 1/4 as much to build as the cheapest FCV on the road today. And that expensive FCV can only travel 120 miles on an insanely expensive fillup. To drive the length of CA would cost about $900 in the FCV. The BEV will cost about $10 for the trip...
[ QUOTE ]
The vehicle will be very much like an electric car, only when you "recharge" it, you're reversing the reaction in the fuel cell.
[/ QUOTE ]Whoa now! You've just perfectly described a battery electric system. A battery is basically a fully self-contained, cheap, small fuel cell, actually. Just four times more efficient.
[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked up on pure electric cars, they were topping out at around 50 miles range.
[/ QUOTE ]Not sure where or when you checked, but the first ever production EV had a range of 60 miles until the defective batteries were replaced with good ones less than a year after introduction. Presto, 120 miles range for the origninal car. Two years later it was released with NiMH batteries (invented for the EV industry) and the range soared to 160 miles.
[ QUOTE ]
'Guess I need to move closer to work and make a hell of a lot more money to take immediate advantage of current EVs.
[/ QUOTE ]No worries there - there are no "current" EVs. They are not being made because all of our eggs are in the FCV basket right now.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I wouldn't look to the auto companies to produce any revolutions in passenger cars - they have entrenched interests they simply can't shake (oil companies, the dealer business model, institutional inertia).
[/ QUOTE ]Indeed we are on the same page here. People often ask why, if the cars are so good, wouldn't the automakers want to make them? Well, as much as they advertise to the contrary, offering the best car to the public isn't really the biggest motivator in the business... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
promise of fuel cells once vehicles get smaller and lighter after relieved of the combustion engine burden.
[/ QUOTE ]This is one of the classic "poor comparison" issues that are put on the table daily. Here you effectively state that a FCV of the future will be better than a BEV of the past. I think I've stated here before that today's production EVs (and by the way none of them are rated below 100 miles, so I'm not sure what you're reading for the 50 mile range) are at least 10-year-old technology. Current EVs (not production since they are not IN production) have a real-world 300 mile range capability along with fast charging. If large auto compainies were to really want this (like they say they want FCV) then we'd be somewhere. There is no way anybody (including FCV supporters!) can imagine a FC vehicle that is higher performance or cheaper to produce than a pure battery EV. If the same effort and money was put into battery development as is now being put into FC research, then we'd have a fair race, and I know where my money would be! In the past six years, we have increased battery energy density by about 6 times! That isn't going to happen with fuel cells.
Let's put it another way. FCV research has been going on far longer and with far more monies spent than Battery Electric research. And today, with no industry backing, we have a battery electric car that will do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, and travel 300 miles on a charge. That particular vehicle cost 1/4 as much to build as the cheapest FCV on the road today. And that expensive FCV can only travel 120 miles on an insanely expensive fillup. To drive the length of CA would cost about $900 in the FCV. The BEV will cost about $10 for the trip...
[ QUOTE ]
The vehicle will be very much like an electric car, only when you "recharge" it, you're reversing the reaction in the fuel cell.
[/ QUOTE ]Whoa now! You've just perfectly described a battery electric system. A battery is basically a fully self-contained, cheap, small fuel cell, actually. Just four times more efficient.
[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked up on pure electric cars, they were topping out at around 50 miles range.
[/ QUOTE ]Not sure where or when you checked, but the first ever production EV had a range of 60 miles until the defective batteries were replaced with good ones less than a year after introduction. Presto, 120 miles range for the origninal car. Two years later it was released with NiMH batteries (invented for the EV industry) and the range soared to 160 miles.
[ QUOTE ]
'Guess I need to move closer to work and make a hell of a lot more money to take immediate advantage of current EVs.
[/ QUOTE ]No worries there - there are no "current" EVs. They are not being made because all of our eggs are in the FCV basket right now.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I wouldn't look to the auto companies to produce any revolutions in passenger cars - they have entrenched interests they simply can't shake (oil companies, the dealer business model, institutional inertia).
[/ QUOTE ]Indeed we are on the same page here. People often ask why, if the cars are so good, wouldn't the automakers want to make them? Well, as much as they advertise to the contrary, offering the best car to the public isn't really the biggest motivator in the business... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif