i think what is missing from these EV cars is a small hydrogen fuel cell.
2 small tanks of hydrogen say 8-9 lbs each would power an ev for 500 miles and greatly increase the range and decrease the need for ev infrastructure.
you would just zip in to a store, exchange an empty tank like you do propane and be in your way.
As solar/photovoltaic technology improves, that’ll help too.
How did you arrive at that those numbers ? Not doubting it, just wonder how the math works on that. Seems like a small amount. But gotta consider if it’s gray, blue, or green hydrogen and associated costs too. But for me the range is still too limiting for long drives. For daily commutes under 100 miles, a 120v home charger with 12 hour over night charging should do the trick.
Good article but it fails to mention costs for the EV if you just go with 120v low cost home charge
option and what residential electricity rates are being used. Without that data it’s not great. I think
article has bias to making gas cars come out the “winner”.
I could see an EV working for my daily short trip run to the store type stuff ; but doesn’t meet my
requirements for long car trips due to long recharge time.
I have thought about putting solar on my house and handle the cost of my house and car.
Electric cars make good sense in countries like Iceland that use geothermal energy to generate electricity, or countries like France that use nuclear energy.
They make far less sense in the USA simply because a large percentage of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels.
That switch seems to do very little, global warming wise.
Why? Even coal plants are cleaner than individual gas combustion cars.
They still produce greenhouse gases.
True, only about 11% from wind and solar at this point. Now this Bloomberg reports that between
2021 and 2030 US will add 400 GigaWatts( ?!?!) of solar and wind. If that’s true, that changes things.
Earlier this year, BloombergNEF projected 204 gigawatts of utility-scale solar installations and 83 gigawatts of small-scale photovoltaic additions across the U.S. between 2021 and 2030. It also forecast the country will add 115 gigawatts of wind power over that period.
They may also make good sense in reduction of particulate matter that are bane of
diesel and, to lesser degree, gas ICE. Especially in high density metro population areas. “Clean” sources, which may or may not produce less particulate matter, at least allows for more dispersion
over a larger area. True the “invisible” microscopic bits of your tires from all vehicles are still there…so there is always something.
In my opinion and that of members of the University of Houston, the future is hydrogen.
Electric is not green and the battery disposal issue is profound. Plus you can’t power an airliner or aircraft carrier with batteries. Then you have the rare earth metals that China controls and the mining conditions that the Chinese put people under that makes it socially unpalatable.
They still produce greenhouse gasses? Who claimed that EVs don’t use greenhouse gasses? Its so funny to see EV haters point out that electricity is produced using greenhouse gasses, as if, someone buying a $50K electric car wasn’t as smart as the hater. What do haters think, that EV owners think their Teslas run on unicorn farts? Like some knuckle head trying to point out EV can’t go through flooded streets because of the electricity. Wow, those MIT and Stanford engineers didn’t think of something so obvious, but you did! EVs have become political and a certain demographic already is hating on them with false narratives that their media masters feed them. Clearly evident from the usual posters on this thread.
Bush the Younger touted hydrogen during a State of The Union and folks called him ignorant
W was correct on Hydrogen. It is the future.
From my media overlord and notoriously trying to keep the people down rag the LA Times:
Electric cars are not green.
I envision solar-powered electric cars, though I know that being practical is so far off I wouldn’t live to see it.
But some folks are trying…claim they could get an
A380 1,000km …instead of the conventional fuel range of 15,000km. Granted that’s More then an order of magnitude, but hey they are working on it !
This article references lithium ion batteries; not sure
how solid state batteries may change energy density…but highly unlikely to be by 15x,
Electric cars still need fossil fuels but that doesn’t mean they aren’t better for the environment. They are and will continue to get better.
It’s an incremental improvement that we need. And we will need more of them like it. There isn’t a magic pill. We need everyone working together on this across all industries. That includes oil and gas.
If you want to enrich, Elon Musk, Texas and the Chinese …yeah buy an electric vehicle. If you want to improve the environment…no.
If you want to reduce carbon emissions, yes.
There are other concerns (including environmental) of course. Life is full of trade offs and this is one that’s likely needed. There are plenty of others though.