Still want an EV? (NO POLITICS)

dfox wrote

This is false and has been proven many times over. EV's are better for the environment from start to finish, from mining the materials to recycling. Even with a so-so electricity source.


Not sure I agree with this. In some respects, yes. In others no. Many of the old existing cars on the road have very little in emissions controls, and even if they did have it to begin with, they often stop working with zero other symptoms other than what comes out of the tailpipe.


Yes and no. Electricity companies "buy" power from various sources to support their customers. My electricity supplier pays for 97% sustainable energy (mostly hydro) with the remainder coming to help support the peak loads that the sustainable sources can't handle. So while yes, the grid is the grid, my money is going to support sustainable sources, helping them grow rather than increasing demand on coal plants...


I agree on Hybrids. They hit a sweet spot. They're pretty good, they help stretch resources, and they keep things within the comfort level of most people.

Efthreeoh wrote

But hydro is no friend to the environment says numerous animal protection groups. I don't care, and I'm not offering to debate it, I'm just pointing it out. Somewhere someone finds fault with something, is my point.

BlkGS wrote

Ramcharger with its ra.ge extended EV setup is going to be this. It's going to be a real paradigm breaker, assuming Ram actually brings it to market, and doesn't price it out of contention.

The other real issue with EV adoption, at some point, a vehicle costs so much that I don't care about the fuel economy savings. Ramcharger is going to be a great example. If a fully loaded Ramcharger is like 100k, even if it matches the performance of a 90k turbo6 truck, I don't care about the potential ROI because it's a 100k truck. I'm not gonna pay 100k to beta test something that has a competitive alternative. Frankly, even with price parity, I'm likely not going to buy the beta test product, because I have more money than time, and so the risk of having to deal with new product issues is of more importance to me than maybe saving money on "fuel".

If i'm looking at cars in the 30k range, then saving money on fuel is gonna matter a lot more to me, because that fuel cost is a larger portion of my income most likely. If you're buying a 100k car, fuel costs shouldn't be factoring into your budget.

dfox wrote

Yeah I don't care either. They talk about tearing down dams here in WA state and I think they're all lunatics.

Although I'd rather just see more nuclear plants and then they can do whatever they want with the dams.

tturedraider wrote

As I mentioned in the original post, I have never heard an industry representative or a political representative even mention this issue in passing. It appears to be totally ignored.

tturedraider wrote

I don’t agree with you that my question is political, but I won’t worry about that. I asked the question as a pragmatic issue and you answered that. I appreciate your answer, because you are literally the only person who has ever answered the question. Of course, I guess I have to say I appreciate your answer at least partly because I agree with it. With the EV technology we have today (mainly the battery technology) there is no practical way to charge cars that must be parked on the street and even though infrastructure wise it may be possible to fill parking garages with charging stations, fiscally the cost would be so enormous it borders on being impractical.

So for a very large percentage of car owners in our big cities the technology will have to improve dramatically. I would say more than improve. It will have to change. Batteries will have to be able to be charged within a matter of minutes, much like now with filling a tank with gas, and there will have to be chargers capable of delivering such a charge.

As I mentioned in the original post, I have never heard an industry representative or a political representative even mention this issue in passing. It appears to be totally ignored.

Efthreeoh wrote

My vision is not a range extender architecture, but rather an EV that has on board electricity generation instead of a giant plug-in-the-wall battery. It has a small battery for surge energy requirements.

dfox wrote

First, changing someone's mind is not the point of debates like this, imo. Very view people are changing their mind, they're just here looking for their daily confirmation bias.

Unfortunately the bulk of the "conversations" in this thread are anti-ev clickbait that centers on fires and a lack of chargers. I tried to join in this thread a few times to discuss reasonable topics like what you posted above, but instead just get constantly bombarded with bullshit clickbait and half facts. It's really just not worth the stress.

Nobody has the time to have in-depth conversations like this on a forum, so yes, it just ends up being a circle jerk for the majority of posters.

freakystyly wrote

https://www.motor1.com/news/731650/hyundai-n-vision-74-production-confirmed/

GL finding hydrogen to fill up with... And yes, it has to be produced, stored, handled, etc.

AmuroRay wrote

So does gasoline.

freakystyly wrote

https://www.motor1.com/news/731650/hyundai-n-vision-74-production-confirmed/

GL finding hydrogen to fill up with... And yes, it has to be produced, stored, handled, etc.

BlkGS wrote

Ok... But where does the power for the electricity generation come from? The only real option right now is burning hydrocarbons. If we had more nuke plants you could arguably by a hydrogen powder fuel for fuel cells, but reity is, you're burning fuel.

That said, I think a more substantial battery pack makes sense. Something that allows for 30iles of range or so. Then you're gonna have a high percentage of people able to plug in and charge and not need to generate their own electricity onboard. But for that to really matter a whole lot you have to have clean (nuclear) power generation.

AmuroRay wrote

Where did my post go?

RM7 wrote

Yeah, but you can park a gasoline car in a garage.

Efthreeoh wrote

But the H2 boils off no matter what.

RM7 wrote

Sure, but in an enclosed space its an extreme explosion hazard (because it has to gas off). This is why hydrogen vehicles cannot be parked in a garage. Hydrogen is crazy impractical for small scale/autos.

Efthreeoh wrote

Gasoline, diesel, gasified coal, Efuels (for the carbon-neutral folks), bio diesel, ethanol, to name a few. The Gen1 Volt had a 16kWh battery and had a 38-mile range (most owners got in the 45 range) and the Gen2 had a 18kWh with 53-miles range, so the hybrid you are thinking of was in production over 14 years ago.

But my design is not a plug-in. Hit the start button and drive away, refuel in a few minutes to replenish the 6 gallons of gas needed to drive 400+ miles.

RM7 wrote

Sure, but in an enclosed space its an extreme explosion hazard (because it has to gas off). This is why hydrogen vehicles cannot be parked in a garage. Hydrogen is crazy impractical for small scale/autos.

BlkGS wrote

Only if you're a total googan and try to use compressed hydrogen like it's gasoline.

Hydrogen can be "packaged" into powders for use. They did it for fuel cells like over a decade ago, and theres a more industrial scale version now that can be used to transport/ship it.

You could store it as dihydrogen monoxide and split it out, but that substance kills a lot of people every year.