China Looks at Ending Sales of Gasoline Cars

[Megalith]

China is joining France and Britain in announcing plans to end sales of gasoline and diesel cars: a Cabinet official has revealed that the country’s industry ministry is developing a timetable to end the production and sale of traditional fuel cars and promote development of electric technology. Beijing is stepping up pressure on automakers to accelerate development of electrics.

China is the biggest auto market by number of vehicles sold, giving any policy changes outsize importance for the global industry. A deputy industry minister, Xin Guobin, said at an auto industry forum on Saturday his ministry has begun "research on formulating a timetable to stop production and sales of traditional energy vehicles," according to the Xinhua News Agency and the Communist Party newspaper People's Daily.

 

[Gavian]

Yeah pollution is a problem there.

 

[Ultima99]

If we would do this too it would crush the price of oil and gas majorly defunding terrorist organizations.

 

[gwarren007]

I can see elecric Smart Cars there....

 

[Teenyman45]

Without a fundamental change in the materials composition of the electric motors and batteries, good luck doing that. There is nowhere near enough global mining production to meet that sort of demand and scaling up the mining will have its own environmental catastrophes.

 

[Verge]

If we would do this too it would crush the price of oil and gas majorly defunding terrorist organizations.

Ummm?

We are the 3rd largest oil producer.

 

[gabhpr]

Ummm?

We are the 3rd largest oil producer.

Saudi Arabia is the number one producer and also happen to be the world's largest exporter of terrorism

 

[gxp500]

Saudi Arabia is the number one producer and also happen to be the world's largest exporter of terrorism

And the US is the number one arms supplier to that terrorism and number one invader of other countries and so fourth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[zehoo]

Time to buy some coal ;-).

 

[tetris42]

If we would do this too it would crush the price of oil and gas majorly defunding terrorist organizations.

Well, if that was actually the GOAL of the powers that be, we would do that...

Ummm?

We are the 3rd largest oil producer.

And we consume over twice as much oil as we produce. Our demand for oil isn't going anywhere.

 

[jedijeb13]

When supercharge stations are as plentiful as gas stations then we might be able to begin the transition in the US. Not just in cities but in rural areas also. To try to quickly transition here now, it would set back the mobility of the average person 50+ years, probably more. People now want to be able to go where they want, when they want, but with electric you would have to do a lot of preplanning for any trip over a few hours long with current infrastructure and vehicle tech.

 

[Chunder]

Time to buy some coal ;-).

That's probably the worst investment anyone could possibly make today. Even with massive government handouts to the coal industry, its been in a steady freefall for decades. Just don't tell that to Bob Murray though, he might just sue you. He literally made his nearly tax-free fortune off the government and dead American workers that produced all the wealth, all while their communities were left devastated both from his practices, and when he closed up on them as he moved onto raping another town.

 

[Wierdo]

The writing's on the wall in big letters now, get with the program, legacy auto makers, before you miss your chance to stay relevant.

 

[mesyn191]

Pretty much all the auto makers have said they're going electric around 2020 too.

Everyone is doing it to a degree. There have been multiple stories about posted in these forums over the past few weeks.

 

[nutzo]

China is joining France and Britain in announcing plans to end sales of gasoline and diesel cars: a Cabinet official has revealed that the country’s industry ministry is developing a timetable to end the production and sale of traditional fuel cars and promote development of electric technology. Beijing is stepping up pressure on automakers to accelerate development of electrics.

Much easier to control people when their cars only have a 100 mile range. Especially since all you need to stop their mobility is to shut off the power.

When supercharge stations are as plentiful as gas stations then we might be able to begin the transition in the US.

30 minutes to charge the battery half way? No thanks.
Imagine how long the lines would be if everyone took 30+ minute to charge their battery. Also imaging trying to leave south Florida and making the 400+ mile drive to safety, and how many stops you would have to make.

At least with a gas car, it only take a few minutes to fill it up, and you can even take another minute or 2 to fill up a couple gas cans if you need more range.

As for me, if I need to make that drive, it would be in my Camry hybrid. Over 600 miles on a full tank, and even slow stop & go traffic doesn't lower the range much. I'd just make sure to keep my tank full during hurricane season.

 

[mesyn191]

Much easier to control people when their cars only have a 100 mile range. Especially since all you need to stop their mobility is to shut off the power.

OMG stop with the conspiracy crap.

Nowhere do they say it'll be 100mi distance only. And they're shooting for 2020 not now so you can't look at the range of the affordable cars now and assume it'll stay that way forever. Battery tech is improving lots.

Its taken a long damn time to finally get good but it has finally happened and now its just a issue of scaling up production and changing production lines which is why all the car manufacturers are shooting for 2020 or later.

30 minutes to charge the battery half way? No thanks.

They can already charge faster than that with the right charger. Tesla's can do 80% in ~20min. Its expensive BUT its expensive now. In 2020 and after it'll be way cheaper.

 

[EvilWays]

So more coal-based power plants then.

 

[Trimlock]

So more coal-based power plants then.

I was going to say, I was pretty sure a majority of their pollution was from coal power plants.

 

[Chunder]

So more coal-based power plants then.

Um... China recently banned new construction of coal plants in most parts of the country (the populated ones), and has invested over $200 billion so far into renewable energy, and is investing an additional $360 billion by 2020... So no. They're unlikely to be building new coal plants, but they will be continuing to invest in their infrastructure like Europe has been doing, all while America still wants to debate if science is real, and if the scientist are in on some secret global conspiracy.

 

[EvilWays]

Um... China recently banned new construction of coal plants in most parts of the country (the populated ones), and has invested over $200 billion so far into renewable energy, and is investing an additional $360 billion by 2020... So no. They're unlikely to be building new coal plants, but they will be continuing to invest in their infrastructure like Europe has been doing, all while America still wants to debate if science is real, and if the scientist are in on some secret global conspiracy.

Except that renewable energy sources have neither the power density (hence, requiring substantially more land and therefore are as destructive to the environment as fossil fuel based power sources), nor are they as eco-friendly as thought (look at the life-cycle of these renewable energy sources, particularly lithium/lithium ion/lithium polymer batteries used in such things as electric cars and its rather destructive cradle-to-grave lifecycle). More research is definitely required to find a better means of production that provides higher power density AND is eco-friendly.

Also, why people continue to prop up the bullshit IPCC report on anthropogenic climate change is beyond me, especially when it was discovered (by peer review) to have been a bogus study from the get go. The 97% narrative was absolutely false and the data itself was found to have been tampered with and cherry-picked, lest we forget it failed the last tenet of the Scientific Method - repeatability. To say that this report is scientific is insulting to science, as it was nothing more than political agenda driven. Does man contribute to the effects of climate? I have no reason to doubt it, but I also will add the caveat that man-made contributions are not that well defined and will remain that way as long as this fucking farce of a report continues to be propped up. Unfortunately, we will not be able to define it for quite some times (possibly decades) until this "report" dies the death it deserves, and real, objective studies are able to be performed tabula rasa.

 

[SLee]

Um... China recently banned new construction of coal plants in most parts of the country (the populated ones), and has invested over $200 billion so far into renewable energy, and is investing an additional $360 billion by 2020...

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of Chinese electricity generation and even if China cancels most of the plants in the planning stage, it still has a huge number of recently constructed and under construction plants coming online. And Chinese coal is on the rise again.

https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2017-q2-electricity-energy-statistics/

 

[Deleted member 133315]

Gas and diesel cars will still be coming off the production line for years to come as battery technology for electric cars at this moment in time isnt ready for wide spread adoption.

When they can get atleast 24 hours drive time on a full charge and be able to have a full quick charge in 5 or less minutes, thats when electric cars will be with us in huge numbers.

So your v8s are safe for now.

 

[nutzo]

OMG stop with the conspiracy crap.

Nowhere do they say it'll be 100mi distance only. And they're shooting for 2020 not now so you can't look at the range of the affordable cars now and assume it'll stay that way forever. Battery tech is improving lots.

They can already charge faster than that with the right charger. Tesla's can do 80% in ~20min. Its expensive BUT its expensive now. In 2020 and after it'll be way cheaper.

So you are assuming most Chinese will be able to afford Tesla level electric cars? For some reason I seriously doubt that.

Most will be much closer in design to the Nissan Leaf. With a limited range and slower charging times.

As for fast charging, the current Tesla super charging stations will charge a battery to 40% in 20 minutes, and 80% in 40 minutes, or twice as long as you said.
It takes a full 75 minutes to reach a full charge.

 

[nutzo]

When they can get atleast 24 hours drive time on a full charge and be able to have a full quick charge in 5 or less minutes, thats when electric cars will be with us in huge numbers.

Not possible.
Do you realize how much current would have to flow through the power connection to change a battery with that much capacity in 5 minutes?

 

[mesyn191]

Except that renewable energy sources have neither the power density (hence, requiring substantially more land and therefore are as destructive to the environment as fossil fuel based power sources)

China has crap loads of marginal use and/or desert land that they're converting to solar. A third of the country is nothing but desert and their deserts keep getting bigger. Its a big problem actually for them. They're not going to be paving over a forest or farm land to build out their solar PVC fields.

nor are they as eco-friendly as thought (look at the life-cycle of these renewable energy sources, particularly lithium/lithium ion/lithium polymer batteries used in such things as electric cars and its rather destructive cradle-to-grave lifecycle)

They can be recycled in safe and eco-friendly manner without too much trouble. The problem is lots of the recyclers choose to do it in a sloppy and dangerous manner to improve their profits. But there are no technical or fundamental issues stopping them from doing it right. My understanding is the Chinese are slowly cracking down on their industries to be more eco-responsible but details are scarce and there is still lots of corruption over there where regulators are paid to look the other way. So yeah its an issue --------just don't go assuming it'll be a permanent one that will exist forever and ever, that is BS.-------

especially when it was discovered (by peer review) to have been a bogus study from the get go.

No it wasn't. The only major thing wrong with it is that its too optimistic. And that report is only one of several ones showing AGW to be a thing.

If it was just 1 half assed study a high degree of skepticism would be warranted and ideal. But when you have multiple high quality studies all coming to roughly the same conclusion its dishonest BS to try and be all "well that is just your opinion maaaaan". There are even some quality studies done by anti-AGW researchers and funded by anti-AGW types (in this case the Koch bros) that show its a real thing.

So you are assuming most Chinese will be able to afford Tesla level electric? For some reason I seriously doubt that.

What do you think these statements mean in the context of that particular post of mine: "And they're shooting for 2020 not now" + "its expensive now. In 2020 and after it'll be way cheaper.

As for fast charging, the current Tesla super charging stations will charge a battery to 40% in 20 minutes, and 80% in 40 minutes, or twice as long as you said. It takes a full 75 minutes to reach a full charge.

Depends on the vehicle's batteries, you gotta do more than glance a wiki to learn something. If you would've read further you'd also see that chargers that do nearly double that rate are on the way too. And they're going to keep continuing to improve greatly in charge capacity while dropping in cost too.

For some reason you refuse to consider or admit that and I don't know why.

 

[EvilWays]

China has crap loads of marginal use and/or desert land that they're converting to solar. A third of the country is nothing but desert and their deserts keep getting bigger. Its a big problem actually for them. They're not going to be paving over a forest or farm land to build out their solar PVC fields.

Outside of the Gobi Desert, a sizeable part of China is mountains and rough terain (the western third), with that not being the most suitable for solar PV use (without effort to alter the land). Most of their population is to the south and east (costal areas). Again, solar PV has an extreme power density issue. Simply using the Gobi Desert is a throwaway answer and not a solution to the power density problem. Considering that we've been using solar PV technology since the 1950s/1960s with satellites (Vangard I had a single cell in 1958, and the Telstar satellites using them starting around 1962) with not as much improvement as one would expect in about 60 years of modern developement and use (initial PV discovery goes back to 1832). Efficiency on a "premium" panel may reach up to 40% (but is this realistic or just lab results?), but one must pay a premium price and perform continuous maintenance (keeping the panels clear of dirt and debris being the primary maintenance function), plus other inefficiencies between the panels and the grid (transmission/distribution losses and inverter losses).

Solve the power density issue of the panels (ideally, smaller panels with non-premium panel efficiency north of 50%), tighten up on the inverter losses, eco-friendly production materials and methods (why not replaceable cells within a panel?), and all of this affordable at a point of not needing government subsidies and I have a feeling that solar PV would really take off.

They can be recycled in safe and eco-friendly manner without too much trouble. The problem is lots of the recyclers choose to do it in a sloppy and dangerous manner to improve their profits. But there are no technical or fundamental issues stopping them from doing it right. My understanding is the Chinese are slowly cracking down on their industries to be more eco-responsible but details are scarce and there is still lots of corruption over there where regulators are paid to look the other way. So yeah its an issue --------just don't go assuming it'll be a permanent one that will exist forever and ever, that is BS.-------

EPA Analysis of Lithium-ion batteries used in cars.
Analysis of Solar PV Panels (at least somewhat better than Lithium-based batteries, but still involves toxic materials during production).

At no point in my prior post did I explicitly state or imply the issue was permanent. I've only pointed out the fact that improvements in manufacturing materials and methods need improvement for the eco-friendly aspect, and this includes reuse/recycle means rather than the current e-waste results.

No it wasn't. The only major thing wrong with it is that its too optimistic. And that report is only one of several ones showing AGW to be a thing.

If it was just 1 half assed study a high degree of skepticism would be warranted and ideal. But when you have multiple high quality studies all coming to roughly the same conclusion its dishonest BS to try and be all "well that is just your opinion maaaaan". There are even some quality studies done by anti-AGW researchers and funded by anti-AGW types (in this case the Koch bros) that show its a real thing.

Wrong. One of many articles debunking the whole 97% of scientists garbage, not to mention both NASA and NOAA found manipulating data. Do I need to also bring up the attempt to massage long-term data such as to attempt to remove the Medieval Warm Period from the record leading to the Hockey Stick Controversy?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do think AGW does hold some weight, but none of the "reports" honestly can provide anything near a solid answer on the question of "to what extent", as there's been evidence of tampering and cherrypicking (with cherrypicking on both sides in subsequent arguments not helping matters any).

The solution, ultimately, will NOT come from governments, but rather the individuals and communities. Want to help the environment and do your part on mitigating AGW? CHANGE YOUR HABITS! (This is a general statement, not a focus on anyone in particular.) Energy saving methods, finding a place that will actually recycle e-waste instead of using dubious means of disposal (and holding those that use those dubious means responsible for their actions), and being smart about items you buy (and their life cycle effects on the environments) along with other common sense tactics will do more through individual and community effort than any bloviating bureaucracy could ineffectively conjure up with an at-best "good thought, bad execution" mandate.

 

[Deleted member 133315]

Not possible.
Do you realize how much current would have to flow through the power connection to change a battery with that much capacity in 5 minutes?

Thats exactly what I mean, nobody wants to sit and wait for their car to charge thus petrol and diesel engines are going nowhere fast, or atleast not until some new type of battery technology comes along that makes long journeys and uber quick charging possible.

They are making progress as we speak as they are now messing about with batteries that recharge themselves and also with batteries that do a full recharge in a minute or less, ok the latter is meant for phones and other small items etc, but progress is being made on the battery front, it will just take time and during that time petrol/diesel engines will still be king.

Plus, if electricity prices keep rising people wont want an electric car as it will end up being much more costly to run than a normal car.

Atomic power "too cheap to meter", if only that was true.

Long story short, the combustion engine isnt suddenly going to disappear.

 

[mesyn191]

Outside of the Gobi Desert

Uh there are 5 major deserts in China. Gobi is the best known one but there are others and they're fairly big.

Also you don't seem to acknowledge or understand that I said marginal land too. Marginal land is land that isn't necessarily desert but also isn't all that good for growing or doing much of anything with for various reasons.

a sizeable part of China is mountains and rough terain (the western third)

Why in the world would you believe that they can't put solar PVC's on mountains? Yeah it'll be somewhat more expensive but not impossibly so. Certainly not enough to stop them from doing it. You're reaching too hard and are effectively starting to BS here man.

Considering that we've been using solar PV technology since the 1950s/1960s .... with not as much improvement as one would expect in about 60 years of modern developement and use

"Past performance is no guarantee or predictor of future performance." is a term I'm you're familiar with. Also you're kind've whacking away on a strawman there since the past rate of development in PVC has no bearing on whether or not its use now or in the future as a broad use energy source.

Solve the power density issue of the panels (ideally, smaller panels with non-premium panel efficiency north of 50%), tighten up on the inverter losses, eco-friendly production materials and methods (why not replaceable cells within a panel?), and all of this affordable at a point of not needing government subsidies and I have a feeling that solar PV would really take off.

The power density issue doesn't matter since there are huge amounts of desert and marginal land they can use, 90%+ inverters are already out there, and the fact that toxic compounds and metals are used in production doesn't matter either so long as its all used and/or disposed of properly. And solar PVC has is already taking off without govt. subsidies, pricewise it can rival coal or nat. gas. Currently the racking costs as much or more than the cells themselves.

Replaceable cells in a panel won't happen due to the panel needing to be sealed to keep it weather safe for the 20-30+yr of operational life it'll have. Also since the cells are made and installed at approximately the same time they all tend to age out the same and fail around the same time barring manufacturing defects which are tested and repaired at the factory or are sold as de-rated wattage panels for less.

EPA Analysis of Lithium-ion batteries used in cars. Analysis of Solar PV Panels

Nothing in either link disputes what I said so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Note: I didn't say panels and batteries don't OR don't use toxic compounds in them, if you think I did you're mis-reading my post. Its entirely possible to use and dispose of toxic compounds in a eco-safe manner.

I said the recyclers aren't doing their job properly to increase their profits <<<<that is what you have to address, or IOW you have to show there is NO WAY POSSIBLE to recycle them in a eco-safe manner.

At no point in my prior post did I explicitly state or imply the issue was permanent.

You're posting assumes it to be a insolvable issue though by default, it leaves no possibility for anything else. The way things are now are not the way it'll always be in the future. If you know and understand that then you can't reasonably or honestly portray these issues as you've been doing.

Wrong

So the Koch bros didn't fund a anti-AGW study and that study was somehow incorrect? I believe a citation is going to be needed here.

One of many articles debunking the whole 97% of scientists garbage,

Well I never actually said anything about how many scientists agree or disagree that AGW is real but.....Hahahahah you linked to the NCPA?!?!?! Dude they're a defunct Right Wing think tank that also advocated for companies to screw over workers' retirement funds. The article as linked doesn't even actually disprove what it claims is a myth either.

I doubt you'll read it but here is a quality article that summarizes 5 studies showing between 90 and 100% of scientists are on the AGW train:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Its got plenty of cites too and the articles are all peer reviewed by well known 3rd parties so you can't reasonably claim bias or BS either.

not to mention both NASA and NOAA found manipulating data

1st one is a Right Wing conspiracy/smear campaign that is BS: https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...g-media-forward-conspiracy-theory-that/159633
2nd one is also BS, Bates' accusations amount to nothing and were based on a incredibly blown out of proportion technicality: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3656

"At its core, though, it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing."

Tons of drama on Lamar, NOAA, and AGW too, Ars has some good stories on this: https://arstechnica.com/science/201...y-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

Do I need to also bring up the attempt to massage long-term data such as to attempt to remove the Medieval Warm Period from the record leading to the Hockey Stick Controversy?

You can but it'll be just as much BS as all the other articles you're linking to, that guy got sued multiple times and cleared on stuff related to the Hockey Stick graph BTW. You gotta stop reading or watching Right Wing media that is barely a step above Infowars.

will NOT come from governments, but rather the individuals and communities

Without huge amounts of govt. support many of the advances that have been made would never have happened. There is no reason to believe that will change over time since the disparity in resource between even a rich individual and a govt. like the US or even Mexico are gigantic. Its foolish to downplay or attempt to deny that fact.

CHANGE YOUR HABITS!

Absolutely agree here and many conservationists/greenies argue for this too BTW though I think some of their suggestions are a bit too much for some.

 

[Verge]

And we consume over twice as much oil as we produce. Our demand for oil isn't going anywhere.

Look up... way up.


That's where my post was. LOL. You didn't get it.

 

[Verge]

Saudi Arabia is the number one producer and also happen to be the world's largest exporter of terrorism

Is that from fox news?


Beyond your questionably sourced claims of terrorism... you REALLY don't grasp the point.

 

[nutzo]

Depends on the vehicle's batteries, you gotta do more than glance a wiki to learn something. If you would've read further you'd also see that chargers that do nearly double that rate are on the way too. And they're going to keep continuing to improve greatly in charge capacity while dropping in cost too.

For some reason you refuse to consider or admit that and I don't know why.

So you think they will be able increase battery capacity by 300%, solve the charging problem by allowing a full charge in 10 minutes, and somehow mange to significantly cut the costs in the next few years? (2020 is only a couple years away)

If you look at the speed of past battery advances, we are likely a decade or two away from having a mid-sized electric car that can go 500+ miles on a charge.

Besides, when you look at the cost of electricity out here in Southern California, it's cheaper to drive a hybrid, even with $3.50/gallon gas.

 

[SomeoneElse]

This is just one aspect of renewable energy. We still have other technologies besides straight electric cars. Fuel Cells which essentially run on water are still a viable option but no one wants to invest in that type of tech. I admit i don't know a whole alot about Fuel cell cars but if we cant to really look at the argument of "filling up" pouring a non-flammable liquid into a cell and driving away in 5 mins sounds way better than waiting to charge for 20 mins, or even using a combustible liquid to drive with carbon based emissions. Most eco-friend drive is a fuel cell which emits water vapor....Everyone is focused on electric, we still have options to explore beyond that.

 

[Jagger100]

That's probably the worst investment anyone could possibly make today. Even with massive government handouts to the coal industry, its been in a steady freefall for decades. Just don't tell that to Bob Murray though, he might just sue you. He literally made his nearly tax-free fortune off the government and dead American workers that produced all the wealth, all while their communities were left devastated both from his practices, and when he closed up on them as he moved onto raping another town.

You are unaware of China's energy practices.

Ironically coal plants upwind of their cities has probably more to do with pollution in those cities than cars do. So they'll switch to all electric which will lead to even more coal consumption.

 

[Jagger100]

This is just one aspect of renewable energy. We still have other technologies besides straight electric cars. Fuel Cells which essentially run on water are still a viable option but no one wants to invest in that type of tech. I admit i don't know a whole alot about Fuel cell cars but if we cant to really look at the argument of "filling up" pouring a non-flammable liquid into a cell and driving away in 5 mins sounds way better than waiting to charge for 20 mins, or even using a combustible liquid to drive with carbon based emissions. Most eco-friend drive is a fuel cell which emits water vapor....Everyone is focused on electric, we still have options to explore beyond that.

Electrolysis of Water for Hydrogen is basically the day we have unlimited, nearly zero cost, clean energy from a powerplant. Until then it will come form oil.

 

[mesyn191]

So you think they will be able increase battery capacity by 300%, solve the charging problem by allowing a full charge in 10 minutes, and somehow mange to significantly cut the costs in the next few years? (2020 is only a couple years away)

Where the heck did I even say anything close to "300% more battery capacity"?! Your original claims were about a 100mi limit and I said you're going to see more than that at reasonable prices!! "Charging to 80% in ~20min" is also nowhere close to "full charge in 10min"!! And no doubling a charge rate will still not give you "full charge in 10min." And its a given at this point that the batteries are going to get lots cheaper. Everybody is going electric for a reason, and its not the environment, otherwise they would've pushed for electric harder years ago.

Respond to what I actually say instead of strawmanning me non-stop or don't post at all!!!

If you look at the speed of past battery advances, we are likely a decade or two away from having a mid-sized electric car that can go 500+ miles on a charge.

Why do you think they need to get 500mi+ on a single charge?!? Yes a gas car can do that today but that isn't necessary at all. Its also a pretty damn far cry from your original claims of "limited to 100mi cuz' govt. conspiracy". Don't try and go playing the goal post shifting game now. You're just going to get put on ignore.

Realistically 200-300mi is going to be fine and doable with home plug in chargers and that sort of battery capacity will become affordable to most. Many gas cars historically and in recent times "only" had a range like that due to poor fuel efficiency and no one thought it was a particularly onerous restriction. 500mi+ will be for specialist high cost cars/trucks for a while yet...but even that will get affordable faster than you might think.

Besides, when you look at the cost of electricity out here in Southern California, it's cheaper to drive a hybrid, even with $3.50/gallon gas.

Only if you assume gas and battery prices will never change and stay the same. But that seems to be a thing you love to do.

 

[nutzo]

This is just one aspect of renewable energy. We still have other technologies besides straight electric cars. Fuel Cells which essentially run on water are still a viable option but no one wants to invest in that type of tech. I admit i don't know a whole alot about Fuel cell cars but if we cant to really look at the argument of "filling up" pouring a non-flammable liquid into a cell and driving away in 5 mins sounds way better than waiting to charge for 20 mins, or even using a combustible liquid to drive with carbon based emissions. Most eco-friend drive is a fuel cell which emits water vapor....Everyone is focused on electric, we still have options to explore beyond that.

A fuel cell is just a replacement for the battery. The rest of the car is still electric.

Fuel calls don't run on water, they run on hydrogen. The hydrogen is extracted from water, and then the hydrogen is used as fuel.
All this required energy, similar to the energy required to change a battery in a car.

For an example, look at the Toyota Mirai.

The advantage is the longer range (300 miles) and the quick 5 minute fill up time.
The disadvantage is the cost, and trying to find a hydrogen station to fill the tank. You also can't plug it in at home to charge it.

 

[mesyn191]

Fuel Cells which essentially run on water are still a viable option but no one wants to invest in that type of tech.

Toyota and other big manufacturers threw heaps of cash at fuel cells. They're just too expensive to produce in a safe and viable manner in a vehicle. Performance was kinda crappy too.

OK article on them: https://evobsession.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-fail-in-depth/

Everyone is focused on electric, we still have options to explore beyond that.

What other options have panned out anywhere near as good or viable as electric though?

Almost nothing else has even made it past the early development stages into a sellable product as far as I can tell.

You can actually buy a electric car today if you have enough cash or are willing to make some lifestyle changes to accommodate the limitations of the cheaper ones. And they're only going to get better and more affordable in the near term.

 

[travisty]

A fuel cell is just a replacement for the battery. The rest of the car is still electric.

Fuel calls don't run on water, they run on hydrogen. The hydrogen is extracted from water, and then the hydrogen is used as fuel.
All this required energy, similar to the energy required to change a battery in a car.

For an example, look at the Toyota Mirai.

The advantage is the longer range (300 miles) and the quick 5 minute fill up time.
The disadvantage is the cost, and trying to find a hydrogen station to fill the tank. You also can't plug it in at home to charge it.

The BIGGEST disadvantage?

Using pure drinkable water as a fuel source. That seems like a good idea! (ha)

Or, the cheapest place to get hydrogen, hydrocarbons. Woo we'd still be addicted natural gas/oil! And it's even less efficient than burning it in ICEs

 

[nutzo]

Realistically 200-300mi is going to be fine and doable with home plug in chargers and that sort of battery capacity will become affordable to most.

If they can manage a 200-300 mile range and a charge time of less than 10 minutes at a reasonable price, they will sell a lot of electric cars. However, I think that is still many years away.
Other than Tesla, most electric cars are small and don't even include a space for something as simple as a spare tire.

One of the main reasons people buy electric cars in California is because they can travel solo in the carpool lanes. It's simply a way for the upper class to avoid traffic.
The 2nd reason is the large federal and state rebates and dealer subsidies that can make leasing an electric car cheaper than a gas powered car (similar small sized car)

Only if you assume gas and battery prices will never change and stay the same. But that seems to be a thing you love to do.

And you assume electricity prices will never change. Over the past few years I've seen gas prices go down, and electricity prices go up.
But this is California, so I expect bad government decisions to result in the opposite of what is intended.

 

[Comixbooks]

Rush Limbaugh said the combustible engine saved the people in the Hurricane from the flooding no way will a electric boat save anyone.