Paris Plans to Banish All but Electric Cars by 2030

[aShrubbery!]

As

Meanwhile the rest of France:

Nope! Judging from the above ground power poles, the lack of frontal number plate on the yeeeeewwwwge truck, the location of the exhaust, and the crappy condition of the road, I'd say we're in an affluent area of AL.

 

[aShrubbery!]

Also the population is rediculously large compared to america so the "per capita comes down"

That's some good shit!

 

[aShrubbery!]

It isn't hard to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen. The problem is that it takes more energy than it produces.

What we really need is nuclear fusion.

Well, if you use renewables then the cost is much lower to convert water into H, in the long term. I am not sure if you have to have 100% pure H2O, but you can build hydrogen plants near the shores where wind is abundant, as well as hydro power can be generated from the tides. The technology exists.

 

[aShrubbery!]

obviously it'll work out to be no cars for the surfs and rocket travel for the rich by 2040.

You mean Smurfs?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'm hardly the "younger generation", but what we have is not fine, and we do need new, especially in automotive. The only reason people are speaking up is worries about "muh freedumbs" (not limited to the US) and "don't tell me what I can't have".

Both ways of thinking will be obsolete before you know it. People will still drive for fun, it'll just be "different", which always takes getting used to.

Until the problems I noted can be solved then electric really isn't a better alternative for most. It's like saying a Prius would be sufficient for a construction worker. Right now it's a niche product. And it still has significant roadblocks till mass adoption.

 

[Gorankar]

The politicians that put this forward, will, in all likelihood, not be the ones that have to implement it in 13 years. This is can kicking at it's finest. ICE vehicles are a pollution problem, but they can't really fix it currently, (because the cure, electric cars, has a lot of problems of it's own), so they foist it onto the next generation to fix it. If that generation can't actually implement it, they will tack another decade or two onto the "plan" to get rid of ICE vehicles, and kick that can forward again.

It happens all the time here. Hell, just look at the N. Korea problem. Nearly 70 years of president after president, congress after congress, kicking it forward.

 

[NeoNemesis]

Well, if you use renewables then the cost is much lower to convert water into H, in the long term. I am not sure if you have to have 100% pure H2O, but you can build hydrogen plants near the shores where wind is abundant, as well as hydro power can be generated from the tides. The technology exists.

Ya, it's possible, but at that point it would probably be more efficient to use the power generated by those renewable sources just to charge batteries.

The other factor is that people are irrationally afraid of Hydrogen despite the fact that it's no more dangerous than natural gas or gasoline. So you'd have to get over that hurdle as well. The Hindenburg ruined it for everyone.

 

[LMT MFA]

Until the problems I noted can be solved then electric really isn't a better alternative for most. It's like saying a Prius would be sufficient for a construction worker. Right now it's a niche product. And it still has significant roadblocks till mass adoption.

This is why they're talking about this for 12 years into the future, in one city. Not tomorrow nationwide.

To put that into perspective, Tesla was founded 14 years ago, as in they had nothing at that time, no car company did. Look how far the tech has come since, and now production and development for just about every major car company is in full swing.

How can you expect there to not be big improvements for that time period.

 

[naib]

The other factor is that people are irrationally afraid of Hydrogen despite the fact that it's no more dangerous than natural gas or gasoline. So you'd have to get over that hurdle as well. The Hindenburg ruined it for everyone.

While there is a degree of mass hysteria (and the zeppelins played a part in this) Hydrogen is actually more dangerous than natural gas because it burns with a near invisible flame. From a HS&E perspective this is a nightmare and additional protections are in place where hydrogen gas is used. Likewise the flammability concentration is very, very low

• The hydrogen concentration could easily reach the lower flammability limit (4%) if there were a leak in a confined space with no ventilation. An outdoor leak would simply rise quickly and diffuse.
• Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is almost invisible during daylight hours, so fires are almost impossible to see with the naked eye.
• Hydrogen fires have low radiant heat, so you can't sense the presence of a flame until you are very close to it (or even in it).
• Combustion can't occur in a tank that contains only hydrogen. Oxygen (or air) and an ignition source are required for combustion to occur.

Hydrogen Flame Detection

• Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is nearly invisible in daylight. The flame may appear yellow if there are impurities in the air like dust or sodium.
• A pure hydrogen flame will not produce smoke.
• Hydrogen flames have low radiant heat. Unlike a hydrocarbon fire, you may not feel any heat until you are very close to the flame.
• Because of these properties, use a portable flame detector, such as a thermal imaging camera, when possible. If flame detection equipment is not available, listen for venting hydrogen and watch for thermal waves.
• Note that vent stacks are standard in storage facilities, and the ignition of venting gaseous hydrogen is common. Systems are designed to do this safely.
• Flame detectors may be installed in storage facilities and fueling stations. Listen and watch for audible or visual alarms.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

This is why they're talking about this for 12 years into the future, in one city. Not tomorrow nationwide.

To put that into perspective, Tesla was founded 14 years ago, as in they had nothing at that time, no car company did. Look how far the tech has come since, and now production and development for just about every major car company is in full swing.

How can you expect there to not be big improvements for that time period.

Lithium refining techniques haven't improved in over 100 years

Lithim batteries haven't improved much since their creation in the early 90's

The electric grid has been slated for upgrade since the 60's. It's progress has been non existent.

The supply of lithium is limited no matter what.

Some things are outside Tesla's control.

 

[Gorankar]

While there is a degree of mass hysteria (and the zeppelins played a part in this) Hydrogen is actually more dangerous than natural gas because it burns with a near invisible flame. From a HS&E perspective this is a nightmare and additional protections are in place where hydrogen gas is used. Likewise the flammability concentration is very, very low

• The hydrogen concentration could easily reach the lower flammability limit (4%) if there were a leak in a confined space with no ventilation. An outdoor leak would simply rise quickly and diffuse.
• Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is almost invisible during daylight hours, so fires are almost impossible to see with the naked eye.
• Hydrogen fires have low radiant heat, so you can't sense the presence of a flame until you are very close to it (or even in it).
• Combustion can't occur in a tank that contains only hydrogen. Oxygen (or air) and an ignition source are required for combustion to occur.

Hydrogen Flame Detection

• Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is nearly invisible in daylight. The flame may appear yellow if there are impurities in the air like dust or sodium.
• A pure hydrogen flame will not produce smoke.
• Hydrogen flames have low radiant heat. Unlike a hydrocarbon fire, you may not feel any heat until you are very close to the flame.
• Because of these properties, use a portable flame detector, such as a thermal imaging camera, when possible. If flame detection equipment is not available, listen for venting hydrogen and watch for thermal waves.
• Note that vent stacks are standard in storage facilities, and the ignition of venting gaseous hydrogen is common. Systems are designed to do this safely.
• Flame detectors may be installed in storage facilities and fueling stations. Listen and watch for audible or visual alarms.

Storing and transporting hydrogen is a pita as well comparatively. Nat gas goes liquid at relatively low pressure and much higher temperature compared to hydrogen. (-162c and -253c respectively) That means using hydrogen to store a similar amount of energy in a given sized container, you need much higher pressure containers, or you need to refrigerate. Even then, hydrogen does not condense down as much as nat gas when it is liquefied or compressed. Hydrogen is not an insurmountable task, but it is certainly not anywhere near economical enough that we will see wide scale use of hydrogen to power cars via fuel cell electric or ice, any time soon.

Hydrogen seems like it would be an ideal answer, but like batteries, it comes with a ton of manufacturing, resource useage, and infrastructure issues that make it a bad proposition currently.