Hybrids and why they may the be wrong idea...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The link:http://www.topgear.com/au/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-hybrids-2009-01-12

I was perusing one of the Top Gear sites through a link on Facebook. Tripped across this Jeremy Clarkson take on the rush to Hybrids, and draws an interesting link to the rush to Catylitic Convertors in the 80's. It seems Cat's create more CO2 and Margaret Thatcher of all people was against this (it seems Ms Thatcher maybe isn't as dim as some of you want to believe). Anyhow..she was ignored, and we have them on every car now, and I personally don't think not having them or having them makes a HUGE difference, but there you go.

I do agree though with Clarkson that Hybrids are a dead end technology. I would LOVE to see Hydrogen fuel be perfected....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm with you on Hydrogen :up: Plentiful, clean and gives the car designers more room to innovate .

Hybrids seem a bit pointless to me, Top Gear proved that a powerful M3 is more economical at certain speeds than a Prius.

[Daniel]

Hydrogen cars create even more CO2

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hydrogen cars create even more CO2

In the same way that powering up a battery for an electric car does?

[Daniel]

No, they produce more CO2 than battery powered cars.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

No, they produce more CO2 than battery powered cars.



But it is still possible to produce Hydrogen in a 100% clean way. It just takes a lot of energy to produce.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But it is still possible to produce Hydrogen in a 100% clean way. It just takes a lot of energy to produce.

It is the one problem really, how to make enough Hydrogen at an affordable price and infrastructure to deliver to the consumer.

[Macd]

Water and home conversion stations. Its like all tech, when it is mass produced it will fall in price.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, they produce more CO2 than battery powered cars.

Explain? Hydrogen is "burned" when exposed to o2 to make water out the tail pipe as far as I have been led to believe based on the articles I have read. Or used in fuel cells.

I do know Hybrids at the rate they are going will use up the world's supply of Titanium in a huge hurry if they don't find alternate ideas in the battery dept.

As for the energy used to create Hydrogen, last time I looked Nuclear power was a "green" technology as far as the greenhouse gas thing is concerned...just some cant get past the waste product, and the dirty little secret is it isn't really a problem if society just decides to get on with storing the stuff properly.

Every technology has greenies complainging. We have anti-windmill people, we have people protesting the building of dams, we have people against solar projects in the California desert, and we have to conclude that many of the greenies don't want solutions, they just want to run everyone back to the stoneage...or at least, they would be in charge of how it is handled as we go back to the stone age...

[Hondo]

Hydrogen has to be manufactured. I love the commercials though, "the only waste product is pure, clean water...".

10 years later they'll be at it again, waving their juiced figures around while proclaiming that all this extra water is causing sea levels to rise, evaporation is at saturation levels causing rainfall levels to increase four fold, and almost constant rainfall in some areas. The humidity levels in the air are causing constant wood rot and the spread of all manner of exotic molds in addition to playing hell with the electrical grids.

Yup, hide and watch. Never happy.

Funny to think back about how happy everybody was when the automobile became the majority form of transportation and the streets were no longer covered in horse manure and urine.

[Daniel]

Yes but Hydrogen requires more energy to convert than just using plain electricity in battery form.

[Mark in Oshawa]

By the way Daniel, I am not knocking what you are saying, but I am of the opinion if fusion was developed tomorrow, creating no waste, and was cost effective, someone would find fault with it.

[wedge]

do agree though with Clarkson that Hybrids are a dead end technology. I would LOVE to see Hydrogen fuel be perfected....

It's looks like its going to be Hydrogen

Hybrids are a stop-gap measure because of f***wit politicians advocating battery technology

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's looks like its going to be Hydrogen

Hybrids are a stop-gap measure because of f***wit politicians advocating battery technology

Batteries are great where weight isn't an issue. IN a car, they are a HUGE issue.

I am tired of the Prius owners too....they think they are saving the planet, whereas the only hybrids to me that make any sense on any level are the hybrid buses. Even they are not great. Toronto bought the TTC a bunch of Hybrid buses and a mechanic friend of mine who works there says they cost twice as much, don't get better mileage and are a pain to work on AND don't like Canadian Winters......

[Rollo]

Hybrids seem a bit pointless to me, Top Gear proved that a powerful M3 is more economical at certain speeds than a Prius.

The Ford Focus Econetic, VW Polo BlueMotion, and even the MINI Cooper D all produce less tailpipe emissions than the Toyota Pius and are more fuel efficient. Heck even my 9 year old Ka in the real world is more fuel efficient than the Toyota Pius.

The simple fact is that whatever technology happens to be decided on, ultimately it still has to be able to transport people (in this case in motor cars) which requires a certain amount of energy.

I would suspect that ever since about the beginning of the industrial revolution, industry generally causes a net usable energy deficit. That is, the amount of energy used is more that than the usable amount stored for future use, because ultimately we only have one net energy producer in the solar system and that is the sun.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Ford Focus Econetic, VW Polo BlueMotion, and even the MINI Cooper D all produce less tailpipe emissions than the Toyota Pius and are more fuel efficient. Heck even my 9 year old Ka in the real world is more fuel efficient than the Toyota Pius.

The simple fact is that whatever technology happens to be decided on, ultimately it still has to be able to transport people (in this case in motor cars) which requires a certain amount of energy.

I would suspect that ever since about the beginning of the industrial revolution, industry generally causes a net usable energy deficit. That is, the amount of energy used is more that than the usable amount stored for future use, because ultimately we only have one net energy producer in the solar system and that is the sun.

Cant find fault with what you say sir. Excellent post as per usual.

[anthonyvop]

No, they produce more CO2 than battery powered cars.

My Plants love CO2

[Rollo]

The world's first Hybrid came from Porsche... yes... Porsche!

The Lohner-Porsche Mixte Hybrid was unveiled in 1901 and had a petrol engine engine which drove several electric motors:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Lohner_Porsche.jpg/300px-Lohner_Porsche.jpg

[Mark in Oshawa]

My Plants love CO2

Most plants do. That said, some people are bent out of shape about more CO2 ppm than there was before. They keep claiming it is a pollutant. I don't agree, but I would like to see unbiased research on the subject rather than the crap we have now. I also would like the greenies to get it into their head's their socialistic nonsense of killing cars, choking industry off and putting windmills up isn't going to solve the problem EVEN if it IS the problem.

There are 6 Billion plus people on this rock, and more of them are trying to live to a better standard than they had 20 years ago. Since when is the god given right of a bunch of limo liberals with a green bent to tell the emerging world to give up what we already have? Add in the fact that they wont be taking away what we have except out jobs and our money, and giving it to the emerging nations. OH and of course China, well it will do what the heck they want, because after all, they are China and they don't give a flying fidoo about the enviroment.


So all you guys who love your hybrids, keep on with your fantasy......

[Daniel]

Here's the article I was thinking about.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/cars-lifestyle/hydrogen-cars-lifecycle-emits-more-carbon-than-gas-cars-study-says/

I don't really see the point of hydrogen. Yes in some ways it's a better way than a plug in electric car because you don't have to wait for it to charge BUT, Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is only a way of storing energy so in a sense the hydrogen is basically a battery and AFAIK it takes more energy to produce x amount of energy in the form of hydrogen than it does in the form of just plain old electricity going into a battery. Plus water vapour is also a greenhouse gas as well so in theory it just makes the whole AGW thing worse.

Now you all know I'm not sold on AGW but I really feel that Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dumb way of doing things.

IMHO work needs to be done to

A) Lighten cars
B) Improve regenerative braking systems so cars are more efficient
C) Produce more efficient drivetrains/powertrains
D) Improve charge times and battery technologies
E) Standardise batteries so when you go to the electric battery station on a long journey you can have your batteries swapped out in a similar amount of time to what it takes to refuel with petrol
F) Increase the amount of people working from home because a good deal of people don't physically need to be at work most of the time

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Most plants do. That said, some people are bent out of shape about more CO2 ppm than there was before. They keep claiming it is a pollutant. I don't agree, but I would like to see unbiased research on the subject rather than the crap we have now. I also would like the greenies to get it into their head's their socialistic nonsense of killing cars, choking industry off and putting windmills up isn't going to solve the problem EVEN if it IS the problem.

There are 6 Billion plus people on this rock, and more of them are trying to live to a better standard than they had 20 years ago. Since when is the god given right of a bunch of limo liberals with a green bent to tell the emerging world to give up what we already have? Add in the fact that they wont be taking away what we have except out jobs and our money, and giving it to the emerging nations. OH and of course China, well it will do what the heck they want, because after all, they are China and they don't give a flying fidoo about the enviroment.


So all you guys who love your hybrids, keep on with your fantasy......


Don't get confused that all greenies are liberals. My mum is right of Thatcher on most things yet she's the greenest person I know.

I don't know if rising Co2 causes global warming. It probably doesn't. But I don't think it's an ideal situation for us to be increasing Co2 emissions and cutting down more of what consumes Co2. It's not gonna have a positive effect on biosphere stability. I think the greenies should focus on deforestation more than emissions.

[wedge]

Don't get confused that all greenies are liberals. My mum is right of Thatcher on most things yet she's the greenest person I know.

Word

You have to keep up with the Joneses by organic

[chuck34]

I don't know if rising Co2 causes global warming. It probably doesn't. But I don't think it's an ideal situation for us to be increasing Co2 emissions and cutting down more of what consumes Co2. It's not gonna have a positive effect on biosphere stability. I think the greenies should focus on deforestation more than emissions.

THAT I would agree with, and I think most thinking people would. That being said, I'm not totally convinced that deforestations is a huge problem right now, but we should be watching it, and not do nearly as much as we do in many cases.

And Daniel, if we use electrolosis to split water, and use nukes for the power, what is the harm in that? And how much energy does it take to make a battery? I read somewhere that more energy is consumed by a Prius than a Hummer H1 when both are driven to 100,000 miles. All because of all the exotic stuff that goes into them.

[Daniel]

THAT I would agree with, and I think most thinking people would. That being said, I'm not totally convinced that deforestations is a huge problem right now, but we should be watching it, and not do nearly as much as we do in many cases.

And Daniel, if we use electrolosis to split water, and use nukes for the power, what is the harm in that? And how much energy does it take to make a battery? I read somewhere that more energy is consumed by a Prius than a Hummer H1 when both are driven to 100,000 miles. All because of all the exotic stuff that goes into them.
I agree that nuclear is the way forward. I think wind, tidal, hydro etc etc all have their place but nuclear should be there as well because it's the one source of power that is 100% dependable and clean.

This illustrates the point extremely well. If the power used to power the cars is dirty it doesn't matter where it comes from.
http://23.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ku42p1Ppep1qzxzwwo1_500.jpg

My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

[Mark]

My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

How much energy does it take to manufacture a hydrogen fuel cell compared with chemical batteries?

[Mark]

Anyway, I believe cars using electric motors *are* they way forward, the question is how do we supply the motors with their power? From hydrogen, batteries charged from the mains, that's still the big question.

I think we've established in the past few years that bio-fuels are not the solution.

As I understand it, to make hydrogen all you need is water and electricity. The question then is how easy is it to transport hydrogen? Can it be put into tankers or pipelines.

The likes of Iceland with it's geo-thermal power and France with lots of nuclear stations have access to plentiful and cheap electricity, they could become the new energy producing nations?!

[Sonic]

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years. I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

[chuck34]

I agree that nuclear is the way forward. I think wind, tidal, hydro etc etc all have their place but nuclear should be there as well because it's the one source of power that is 100% dependable and clean.

Ok I guess I misunderstood your stand. I would agree with this statement


This illustrates the point extremely well. If the power used to power the cars is dirty it doesn't matter where it comes from.


Exactly. And a point that is missed by many, many "green" advocates.


My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

Are you sure that batteries don't suck up just as much energy from the grid, if not more, than splitting water? I don't know for sure either, I'll do some digging, but I remember hearing some outragous numbers for engergy to build a battery. Then you have to dispose of them somehow, and some batteries are just about as toxic as nuclear waste.

[Mark]

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years. I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

I did hear most of it was in Canada? But anyway you are right, there is lots and lots of oil left, the problem is getting at it, and then refining it once we've got at it.

We *can* use those sources and the technology is available but at a high cost, so we can continue running our cars on oil, but it'll be much more expensive than we've been used to.

[Daniel]

How much energy does it take to manufacture a hydrogen fuel cell compared with chemical batteries?
I'll be honest and say that I don't know.

[chuck34]

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years.

The other dirty little secret about cars and oil is that even if you don't power them with gas, or desiel, etc. there is still a bunch of oil used. Oil to lubricate moving parts. Oil to make plastic panels. Oil to make the carpets. Oil to make the foam padding. Oil in the tires. And that's just IN the car. There is still plenty of oil used in the machinery to MAKE the car too.


I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

There is a funny little voice in the back of my head wondering if this is and has been the plan for a while now. Suck up the worlds oil quickly and cheaply. Then when everyone else is hooked on the stuff and out of it, we can step up our own production and be a great power again? But maybe I'm giving the "powers that be" WAAAAY too much credit.

[Mark in Oshawa]

First off, we are not getting out of the oil economy any time soon. The "trapped" oil that will be the next major reserve when the light sweet crude is tapped out is mainly oil shale in places like Colorado and Wyoming, and the massive oil sands of Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The problem with both of these sources is there is a price that will be paid for remediating the soil and terrain that may be too expensive. In the case of the oil shale, more research is required because I don't think levelling half the Rocky Mountain's is feasible nor ethical.

The oil sands of Canada however are proving to be financially viable. The companies up there are trying as things move along to be more proactive and careful with the damage and remediating the soil. There are areas where the oil just oozes out of the sand and nothing grows in patchs, so it isn't like mother nature doesn't have a dirty hand in this. Apparently the companies up there are replacing the cleaned soil (removing the oil) and planting trees and the like on the oil free sand. Now I haven't dug up all the links, but believe me, no oil company up there is getting a free ride from the public and the government on getting that oil out of the ground. There are standards to be met.

Getting away from this oil is our future however, but in the meantime we have to get the most out of our oil economy. So I don't grasp why politicians in the US think not drilling for oil ( there are still untapped reserves that are easy to get at in the US) in new areas while buying it from Canada and Mexico ( contrary to popular belief, the US gets very little oil from the Middle East) is any more "Green".

We need this hydrogen thing to work. We need to get on with fusion technology, and we need to figure out a way of creating a hydrogen distribution network. I think it will happen when the oil companies can figure a way to use their existing network and infrastructure and transport hydrogen instead of oil products. This will happen when two things happen:

One, hydrogen can be isolated for use in large quantities, and two, there is an incentive for them to do so.

Not sure how all that happens, but I do know Nuclear power is going to be more important, and ideally Fusion would be the solution, but it it is decades if not further away right now....

As for those who think I am accusing all the greenies of being left wing reactionaries, most of the greens who jump on the manipulation of society to create their utopia are actually left of center pols who are using the fears of climate change and ecological change to get their way. Al Gore is the poster child for this, as is many who protest the wind farms, protest the creation of solar farms in the deserts of California (where the hell else would you put 1000 solar panels?) and protest nuclear plants being built.

The assertion tho that all green minded people should be lumped in with these lefties is wrong, and I apologize to those who are not raving socialist reactionaries, for I do know many people on my side of the political fence who care deeply for preserving the enviroment. I think tho that their voice is being trampled on and manipulated by the same raving loons who attack politicians at events like Copenhagan who are from the other side of the fence, and not for any other reason.

I have to say, until the green movement gets a voice that is above taking sides in the politcal fray, they will always lack credibility.

I am all for conservation. I have a lower carbon footprint than most of the enviro weeenies in the media, I recycle (even though our municpal recycling programs are costing us more money than if we buried it as trash) and I have always been conscious of spending less in driving fuel efficient cars (nothing but 4 cylinders save for one rotary). That said, we have to be practical. We need power, our society stops dead without it, and if the world's population is growing, then we need to find more efficient and clean ways to do it and THAT is good business, not just being green. The problem I have with the rabid greenies of the left is they don't want solutions that don't dovetail in with their political model, and as the climate change fiasco has proven, they are quite willing to lie, cheat and manipulate data to create the illusion they are right.

The jury is still out on what all this CO2 is doing to the climate. The fact is cap and trade is socialism brought to bear on the nation-state level, and doesn't actually solve anything but move money around. Remember, the one American company who was all for the US signing Kyoto and playing the cap and trade game was ENRON, and we all know how ethical THEY were now don't we?

No....you want to reduce CO2, then get on with nuclear power, create the hydrogen economy, and do more UNBIASED research on climate change, what is causing it (CO2 the trigger or is it a symptom? ) if it is actually happening. Solar energy levels from the sun could be a cause, and the climate changed up and down long before we showed up with SUV's. People may not want to hear this, but we are NOT that important......mother nature can do what she likes and we are powerless to stop her...

[schmenke]

... The question then is how easy is it to transport hydrogen? Can it be put into tankers or pipelines...

Therein lies a major problem with hydrogen. It's extremely volatile and dangerous to transport.

[Daniel]

Ok I guess I misunderstood your stand. I would agree with this statement



Exactly. And a point that is missed by many, many "green" advocates.



Are you sure that batteries don't suck up just as much energy from the grid, if not more, than splitting water? I don't know for sure either, I'll do some digging, but I remember hearing some outragous numbers for engergy to build a battery. Then you have to dispose of them somehow, and some batteries are just about as toxic as nuclear waste.
Well I'm fairly sure that the processes used to make hydrogen are more energy intensive than just charging a battery.

I think good green technology should make financial sense and people should be stupid not to adopt it. I mean who here would choose the less fuel efficient of two tyres if they were both suitable in terms of grip, wear and cost?

I mean http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk/en/auto-utilitaires/avantages/20070312100246.html 4g/km of CO2 is not the biggest saving but it probably equates to maybe a 2% CO2 reduction which in the big scheme of things will make a difference.

But instead many people just buy what the tyre guy tells them to and in a lot of cases it's just what the tyre guy has stock of or what he's getting the biggest kickback to sell at that moment in time.

Then there are kitchen appliances, TV's, computers etc to consider. In the last 2 and a bit years we've bought a dishwasher, fridge and washing machine and have always gone for the most water and energy efficient models which were reasonably priced. We've got two PC's which both have energy efficient power supplies and the efficiency of the components chosen was also a factor for me as well.

None of this is difficult stuff to research but the fact is that most people don't have the inclination or it simply doesn't occur to them that this sort of thing can save them money.

[Daniel]

Therein lies a major problem with hydrogen. It's extremely volatile and dangerous to transport.
Hydrogen also leaks easily and apparently turns pipelines brittle.

[Mark]

They are currently facing problems in Scotland. In the north of the country there are massive wind farms and hydro schemes, with much more coming online very soon. But to transport the power from these a new line of pylons is needed. Trouble is the pylons go through some areas of outstanding natural beauty, so obviously there is quite a bit of opposition to the building of them.

But of course, without them, all the renewable schemes are pointless!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The other dirty little secret about cars and oil is that even if you don't power them with gas, or desiel, etc. there is still a bunch of oil used. Oil to lubricate moving parts. Oil to make plastic panels. Oil to make the carpets. Oil to make the foam padding. Oil in the tires. And that's just IN the car. There is still plenty of oil used in the machinery to MAKE the car too..

If we are going to need oil for all of that, might as well take that 10 or 15% of that "waste" product gasoline and burn it right? That was the irony. Oil was used in the 1800's by the US to replace Whale oil for lighting lamps and oiling machinery. Gasoline was a byproduct of early refining and they had no use for the stuff at first. Just burned it off......


There is a funny little voice in the back of my head wondering if this is and has been the plan for a while now. Suck up the worlds oil quickly and cheaply. Then when everyone else is hooked on the stuff and out of it, we can step up our own production and be a great power again? But maybe I'm giving the "powers that be" WAAAAY too much credit.

Your politicians and mind are liked stopped clocks. They are only right by accident maybe two times a day....

The reason you Americans have loads of oil under your borders not being exploited is because the green lobby is against it. The same mindset is against allowing the windfarms off Nantucket (The Kennedy's and John Kerry musn't have their view spoiled) and the idiots running around Sacramento telling the politicians there to not allow a solar farm in the Mojave desert so some ground rat can work on his tan. Schwarznegger said it best "if we cannot put a solar panel array in the desert, where else should we put it? Downtown Los Angeles?" It is just silly political games.

When the pols and the public decide green is the better option, and try to get away from carbon fuels for power, all the sudden windmills are dangerous, more dams are damaging, nukes are no good, solar farms are no good. These idiots who are against anything but useless cap and trade policy think a lap top I guess can be plugged into trees? The population of even nations with moderate to low birth rates are still growing due to immigration and they will need more power, no matter how much effort we put in to conservation. So fine, build solar farms, build windmills, build nukes. They are all carbon friendly and then we can really get on with alternatives for gasoline, and figure out once and for all whether there is a negative effect to the CO2 issue, and how to adjust to the effects. As I said before, the earth has warmed and cooled a few times in the last million years. SUV's and man's silly insistence on electricity has only been around for a blink of that time...

[chuck34]

Well I'm fairly sure that the processes used to make hydrogen are more energy intensive than just charging a battery.

I'm not talking about charging the battery. I'm talking about making the battery and disposing of the battery when it's used up. THAT has to be energy intensive. Although quick searches aren't turning up anything concrete on this, just a bunch of fluff on why you should drive a hybrid etc. I'll keep looking for solid number though.


I think good green technology should make financial sense and people should be stupid not to adopt it. I mean who here would choose the less fuel efficient of two tyres if they were both suitable in terms of grip, wear and cost?

I mean http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk/en/auto-utilitaires/avantages/20070312100246.html 4g/km of CO2 is not the biggest saving but it probably equates to maybe a 2% CO2 reduction which in the big scheme of things will make a difference.

I agree with you in principal. However, in practice the fuel efficient tires are not up to the same standard for grip, wear, or cost. I can tell you with absolute certainty that grip and fuel efficiency (rolling resistance) are inversely proportional, ie as one goes up the other goes down, and vice-versa.


Then there are kitchen appliances, TV's, computers etc to consider. In the last 2 and a bit years we've bought a dishwasher, fridge and washing machine and have always gone for the most water and energy efficient models which were reasonably priced. We've got two PC's which both have energy efficient power supplies and the efficiency of the components chosen was also a factor for me as well.

None of this is difficult stuff to research but the fact is that most people don't have the inclination or it simply doesn't occur to them that this sort of thing can save them money.

Yes, if people do their research properly into this they can find out that they may actually be able to save themselves money in many cases.

[chuck34]

If we are going to need oil for all of that, might as well take that 10 or 15% of that "waste" product gasoline and burn it right? That was the irony. Oil was used in the 1800's by the US to replace Whale oil for lighting lamps and oiling machinery. Gasoline was a byproduct of early refining and they had no use for the stuff at first. Just burned it off......

Yep, if we had never discovered kerosene we wouldn't be in this mess now. :-)


Your politicians and mind are liked stopped clocks. They are only right by accident maybe two times a day....

The reason you Americans have loads of oil under your borders not being exploited is because the green lobby is against it. The same mindset is against allowing the windfarms off Nantucket (The Kennedy's and John Kerry musn't have their view spoiled) and the idiots running around Sacramento telling the politicians there to not allow a solar farm in the Mojave desert so some ground rat can work on his tan. Schwarznegger said it best "if we cannot put a solar panel array in the desert, where else should we put it? Downtown Los Angeles?" It is just silly political games.

When the pols and the public decide green is the better option, and try to get away from carbon fuels for power, all the sudden windmills are dangerous, more dams are damaging, nukes are no good, solar farms are no good. These idiots who are against anything but useless cap and trade policy think a lap top I guess can be plugged into trees? The population of even nations with moderate to low birth rates are still growing due to immigration and they will need more power, no matter how much effort we put in to conservation. So fine, build solar farms, build windmills, build nukes. They are all carbon friendly and then we can really get on with alternatives for gasoline, and figure out once and for all whether there is a negative effect to the CO2 issue, and how to adjust to the effects. As I said before, the earth has warmed and cooled a few times in the last million years. SUV's and man's silly insistence on electricity has only been around for a blink of that time...

You are right, of course, but I have a bit of a consipracy theory streak in me. So feeding that demon I see two possiblities. One is that we are in it for the long term and we are going to screw the rest of the world when they are out of oil and we have it all. Two is that they all really belive that humans are a virus that must be irradicated in order to save the planet.

The truth, I'm sure, lies somewhere in the middle. But sometimes it's fun to think of grand schemes going on behind the scenes. Everybody needs a good Luminati or Templars theory to pass the time, right? :-)

[Daniel]

They are currently facing problems in Scotland. In the north of the country there are massive wind farms and hydro schemes, with much more coming online very soon. But to transport the power from these a new line of pylons is needed. Trouble is the pylons go through some areas of outstanding natural beauty, so obviously there is quite a bit of opposition to the building of them.

But of course, without them, all the renewable schemes are pointless!

I agree that if the areas are of outstanding national beauty that there is a problem but a lot of the places just have problems with NIMBYS.

[veeten]

It seems to me that a lot of folks seem to have a self-centered view with Hydrogen, but there is an area that has gotten very little notice or mention where it comes to the distribution process: how it's going to be paid for.

Remember, it took nearly a century to build the present petrol(Gasoline) distribution system, primarily by the oil companies, in many countries. Compare that to what it would take to mount this adventure, and realise that they (Big Oil) will not foot the bill, as it would take too long for them to recoup the cost.

So, guess who will be left to pay for it? Thats right, you the taxpayer, yet again. Why not, we already pay for many of these 'pie in the sky' dreams that are already in progress.

Also, there's the problem with either retrofitting present road vehicles for using hydrogen or having to buy new vehicles that burn the fuel, as the present flex-fuel systems would be out of the question. At an even higher initial cost than the Hybrids were when they began being produced, whom do you think is going to champion that? BMW and others are building such cars, but only as testing labs & Promotionals.

You stand a better chance with Natural Gas, as the infrastructure is already there, just the expansion of it is less costly.

[Sonic]

I did hear most of it was in Canada? But anyway you are right, there is lots and lots of oil left, the problem is getting at it, and then refining it once we've got at it.

We *can* use those sources and the technology is available but at a high cost, so we can continue running our cars on oil, but it'll be much more expensive than we've been used to.

There is, as you say, a fair bit in Canada. But the vast majority (75% aprox) is found in the USA.

As for cost. As with anything if the technology becomes widespread the cost will reduce. And even if it doesn't the article I read suggested a min price of $45 per barrel to make a profit. The min price for well oil was $7 IIRC. So, yes, it is more expensive but not prohibitively.

I'm all for new fuel sources, and hydrogen does look very promising, but whilst the technology catches up with imagination oil products from alternative sources combined with ultra fuel efficient vehicles is a far better stop gap than hybrid cars which, as has already been mentioned, is a dead end.

[schmenke]

...
The problem with both of these sources is there is a price that will be paid for remediating the soil and terrain that may be too expensive. In the case of the oil shale, more research is required because I don't think levelling half the Rocky Mountain's is feasible nor ethical.

The oil sands of Canada however are proving to be financially viable. The companies up there are trying as things move along to be more proactive and careful with the damage and remediating the soil. There are areas where the oil just oozes out of the sand and nothing grows in patchs, so it isn't like mother nature doesn't have a dirty hand in this. Apparently the companies up there are replacing the cleaned soil (removing the oil) and planting trees and the like on the oil free sand. Now I haven't dug up all the links, but believe me, no oil company up there is getting a free ride from the public and the government on getting that oil out of the ground. There are standards to be met....

Cue schmenke...

The environmental regulations imposed by the federal government for the oilsands industry are some of the strictest I've seen in my career.
All depleted oilsands mines must be remediated back to their original state. This however, is a long term process as a typical mine is in operation for ~25 years, then the "pit" is used as a storage pond for the next (typically adjacent) mine. The "tailings" ponds that all the greenies are up in arms over are misunderstood. The contents of these ponds are 90% clean sand and water, with the other 10% being urecoverable bitumen that was existing in the ground in the first place. Most oil companies are currently looking at technologies to try to recover even more of the remaining 10% to make the entire process cleaner.

The oillsand is typically not more than a few meters below ground level. There are some areas in northern Alberta where your footprints will pool with bitumen once you've walked over the soil.

Current estimates of the recoverable bitumen in Alberta are greater than those in Saudi Arabia. The mines will continue to operate for the next ~100yrs.

Oh, and guess where currently 95% of the Alberta oilsands bitument is exported... Yep, the U.S. :mark: .

Fact: 95% of the world's current energy requirements ar provided by petroleum products and that ain't gonna change any time soon :mark: .

[Langdale Forest]

Hybrid cars, (like Toyota Prius) are boring and look stupid.

[schmenke]

...As for cost. As with anything if the technology becomes widespread the cost will reduce. And even if it doesn't the article I read suggested a min price of $45 per barrel to make a profit. The min price for well oil was $7 IIRC. ....

The current break-even price-per-barrel for the capital investment of developing and commissioning an oilsands mine, including the "extraction" process is currently ~$40.00 which is comparable to the development and commissioning of an offshore oil platform from scratch (although this varies greatly with the location and especially the depth of water).

[Sonic]

The current break-even price-per-barrel for the capital investment of developing and commissioning an oilsands mine, including the "extraction" process is currently ~$40.00 which is comparable to the development and commissioning of an offshore oil platform from scratch (although this varies greatly with the location and especially the depth of water).

Thanks for the info. I didn't know much on the subject prior to reading up on it a couple of months back. And as the figure quoted in the article ties in closely with yours (and you are the expert) I'm going to assume the rest of the figures I saw were also on the money.

The oil age will have to end sometime but I don't expect to see it end in my lifetime - unless someone cracks warp drive ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

It seems to me that a lot of folks seem to have a self-centered view with Hydrogen, but there is an area that has gotten very little notice or mention where it comes to the distribution process: how it's going to be paid for.

Remember, it took nearly a century to build the present petrol(Gasoline) distribution system, primarily by the oil companies, in many countries. Compare that to what it would take to mount this adventure, and realise that they (Big Oil) will not foot the bill, as it would take too long for them to recoup the cost.

So, guess who will be left to pay for it? Thats right, you the taxpayer, yet again. Why not, we already pay for many of these 'pie in the sky' dreams that are already in progress.

Also, there's the problem with either retrofitting present road vehicles for using hydrogen or having to buy new vehicles that burn the fuel, as the present flex-fuel systems would be out of the question. At an even higher initial cost than the Hybrids were when they began being produced, whom do you think is going to champion that? BMW and others are building such cars, but only as testing labs & Promotionals.

You stand a better chance with Natural Gas, as the infrastructure is already there, just the expansion of it is less costly.

Natural gas is a great idea, but it is a finite resource, is far more efficient for heating homes, and creates CO2. Hydrogen wont. THAT is where the greenies are going to be more accepting to Hydrogen and THAT is why I still think it in the end will be the solution. Don't know how we are getting there, but I never discount the ability of science and engineering to make something happen.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Cue schmenke...

The environmental regulations imposed by the federal government for the oilsands industry are some of the strictest I've seen in my career.
All depleted oilsands mines must be remediated back to their original state. This however, is a long term process as a typical mine is in operation for ~25 years, then the "pit" is used as a storage pond for the next (typically adjacent) mine. The "tailings" ponds that all the greenies are up in arms over are misunderstood. The contents of these ponds are 90% clean sand and water, with the other 10% being urecoverable bitumen that was existing in the ground in the first place. Most oil companies are currently looking at technologies to try to recover even more of the remaining 10% to make the entire process cleaner.

The oillsand is typically not more than a few meters below ground level. There are some areas in northern Alberta where your footprints will pool with bitumen once you've walked over the soil.

Current estimates of the recoverable bitumen in Alberta are greater than those in Saudi Arabia. The mines will continue to operate for the next ~100yrs.

Oh, and guess where currently 95% of the Alberta oilsands bitument is exported... Yep, the U.S. :mark: .

Fact: 95% of the world's current energy requirements ar provided by petroleum products and that ain't gonna change any time soon :mark: .

Gee...you would think you worked in the business or something...lol.

Well it is going to fuel North America until we find something better from the sounds of it. At some point, we need a solution...and the hybrid car is a symbol that means little....

[Daniel]

Gee...you would think you worked in the business or something...lol.

Well it is going to fuel North America until we find something better from the sounds of it. At some point, we need a solution...and the hybrid car is a symbol that means little....
Hydrogen production doesn't create CO2? :confused: OK I'll accept if it's produced with renewable or nuclear energy but that aint happening for a while, PLUS the last time I checked water vapour IS a greenhouse gas.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hydrogen production doesn't create CO2? :confused: OK I'll accept if it's produced with renewable or nuclear energy but that aint happening for a while, PLUS the last time I checked water vapour IS a greenhouse gas.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet counterbalancing the CO2. Listen, why don't 5 Billion of us stop breathing, die, and go away? Will THAT not hurt the freaking enviroment? Oh right....

Face it Dan, you want no solution if I read this properly. Nukes will be the power source of choice as we phase out coal. The French power most of their nation on Nukes, and have no issues. IN the end, it is the only non-polluting source if you deal with the waste. So if hydrogen produces water vapour, then great, maybe we put a little collector on there to capture the WATER. IS THAT A POLLUTANT NOW?????????

[Daniel]

Mark, I'm just playing the devils advocate that's all.

[Malbec]

The link:http://www.topgear.com/au/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-hybrids-2009-01-12

I was perusing one of the Top Gear sites through a link on Facebook. Tripped across this Jeremy Clarkson take on the rush to Hybrids, and draws an interesting link to the rush to Catylitic Convertors in the 80's. It seems Cat's create more CO2 and Margaret Thatcher of all people was against this (it seems Ms Thatcher maybe isn't as dim as some of you want to believe). Anyhow..she was ignored, and we have them on every car now, and I personally don't think not having them or having them makes a HUGE difference, but there you go.

I do agree though with Clarkson that Hybrids are a dead end technology. I would LOVE to see Hydrogen fuel be perfected....

I believe the argument against catalytic converters was quite complex and lead by Honda as well as some greens who could see what was coming.

Essentially the argument was that designing better engines without cats would reduce emissions without the need for toxic materials in the cats and without reducing the efficiency of the engine. The cat won the day because it was an instant solution where any maker with miserable old engines could simply buy one, plug it on the back and have a 'clean' car.

Put simply, industry won the day.

As for hydrogen vs batteries, the former is still a nascent technology, the latter is quite mature. Given a few more years we should see a significant improvement in production, storage and utilisation methods for hydrogen, whether its burnt or goes in a fuel cell.

[Malbec]

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet counterbalancing the CO2. Listen, why don't 5 Billion of us stop breathing, die, and go away? Will THAT not hurt the freaking enviroment? Oh right....

Face it Dan, you want no solution if I read this properly. Nukes will be the power source of choice as we phase out coal. The French power most of their nation on Nukes, and have no issues. IN the end, it is the only non-polluting source if you deal with the waste. So if hydrogen produces water vapour, then great, maybe we put a little collector on there to capture the WATER. IS THAT A POLLUTANT NOW?????????

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas if it is in the stratosphere, not if it is in the lower atmosphere which is where it would be it was produced by cars. I doubt the water vapour produced by hydrogen cars would be much of a problem, after all petrol engined cars produce one hell of a lot of water vapour already.

In a similar way, ozone protects when its in the stratosphere but helps cause smog when its lower down. When its in your lungs its just plain toxic.

[Mark]

Water vapour pollution is an issue with regard to airliners etc. Below the cloud base however, there is plenty of water around, as I'm sure you can see! So Hydrogen vehicles are really pollution free at the point of use, if only the fuel could be pollution free too!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas if it is in the stratosphere, not if it is in the lower atmosphere which is where it would be it was produced by cars. I doubt the water vapour produced by hydrogen cars would be much of a problem, after all petrol engined cars produce one hell of a lot of water vapour already.

In a similar way, ozone protects when its in the stratosphere but helps cause smog when its lower down. When its in your lungs its just plain toxic.

All I know is Daniel complaining about the water vapour off of a hydrogen powered car really galled me. I realize he was being a "devils advocate" now, but it is typical of a lot of the people who object to anything that any complaint must be given equal weight. If we listened to every group, we would be back in the stone age in 20 years.

[Mark]

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet

If you are releasing hydrogen using electricity, it usually comes from water in the first place. The process releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The same amount of oxygen is used when the hydrogen is burned. Converting it all back into water.

But of course this doesn't come for free, which is why you need plenty electricity. But I would have thought countries with lots of sunshine could create hydrogen using solar energy. Windy, wavey and tidal countries such as the UK could create it. Countries with a big nuclear capacity such as France, and countries with an abundance of geothermal power such as Iceland.

If hydrogen storage and transport can be solved, it's all very doable.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If you are releasing hydrogen using electricity, it usually comes from water in the first place. The process releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The same amount of oxygen is used when the hydrogen is burned. Converting it all back into water.

But of course this doesn't come for free, which is why you need plenty electricity. But I would have thought countries with lots of sunshine could create hydrogen using solar energy. Windy, wavey and tidal countries such as the UK could create it. Countries with a big nuclear capacity such as France, and countries with an abundance of geothermal power such as Iceland.

If hydrogen storage and transport can be solved, it's all very doable.

This has been my contention. Hydrogen will not be easy to produce in large quantities, but it beats using hydrocarbon based fossil fuels going down the road.

The people who don't like it will be put in the same place of contempt for the members of the green movement here in Ontario who have petitioned for the coal fired generation plants to be closed for more "green " technology only to jump on the anti-windmill bandwagon. Anywhere wind farms are proposed now, there is some group of activists finding new reasons to fight the construction of this "green" technology?

[Sonic]

If we listened to every group, we would be back in the stone age in 20 years.

Quite. James May pointed out if the car hadn't been invented and then someone came along in 2010 and said "Ok brilliant idea. Personal transport for the whole world! All you have to do is fill the vehicle with a highly explosive liquid that also happens to pollute the planet once burnt in the engine. Oh and FYI about 2000 people will die per 60 million population each year in accidents." they'd be laughed at.

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!

[Mark]

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!

That or purely electric propulsion technologies. Either using standard batteries or a fuel cell of some sort.

[Daniel]

Quite. James May pointed out if the car hadn't been invented and then someone came along in 2010 and said "Ok brilliant idea. Personal transport for the whole world! All you have to do is fill the vehicle with a highly explosive liquid that also happens to pollute the planet once burnt in the engine. Oh and FYI about 2000 people will die per 60 million population each year in accidents." they'd be laughed at.

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!
I don't quite get this. Sure I know batteries aren't the best option but what's wrong with just using batteries as batteries rather than hydrogen?

[Malbec]

If you are releasing hydrogen using electricity, it usually comes from water in the first place. The process releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The same amount of oxygen is used when the hydrogen is burned. Converting it all back into water.

But of course this doesn't come for free, which is why you need plenty electricity. But I would have thought countries with lots of sunshine could create hydrogen using solar energy. Windy, wavey and tidal countries such as the UK could create it. Countries with a big nuclear capacity such as France, and countries with an abundance of geothermal power such as Iceland.

If hydrogen storage and transport can be solved, it's all very doable.

The kind of areas that would be good would be large, flat, sunny and uninhabited, ie desert. Could be that the Middle East will just go from oil to hydrogen production...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quite. James May pointed out if the car hadn't been invented and then someone came along in 2010 and said "Ok brilliant idea. Personal transport for the whole world! All you have to do is fill the vehicle with a highly explosive liquid that also happens to pollute the planet once burnt in the engine. Oh and FYI about 2000 people will die per 60 million population each year in accidents." they'd be laughed at.

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!

May's point is perfect. Of course, the automobile came along at a time in human history when people were anxious to be able to get off the farm, or not have to walk 20 blocks to catch over crowded trolley's. The average joe back then NEEDED personal transport for his sanity. It has also allowed the growth of the middle class, which for the most part, everyone on this board belongs to. Without the automobile, what would society look like? Pretty elitist society I would think......

Hydrogen is the best way out of the carbon based fuel quandary we are in that will still provide us with cars that operate with the same efficiencies roughly we are used to. Electric cars do not work well enough yet and they may never work well enough yet. The spoof the boys on Top Gear did brought home for me just how poor the electric car still is compared to regular cars. In cold weather climes, they are unusuable since providing heat would drain the battery so fast it wouldn't be funny. Electric cars are nice toys, but for range, practicality the internal combustion engine still is the way to go, and we just need to fuel it with Hydrogen. If hydrogen fuel cells work, then maybe those too, but until someone makes one that works in all conditions, it wont catch on.

The car is part our lives, and that has been a good thing overall, so lets stop the fiction we can do without it. What we have to do is to really push to make it better in a manner that will be beneficial to all users of it and lovers of it AND the planet.

[Malbec]

I don't quite get this. Sure I know batteries aren't the best option but what's wrong with just using batteries as batteries rather than hydrogen?

Depends on what kind of hydrogen motor you're thinking of.

BMW intends to use hydrogen in the same way as petrol, compressing it and burning it. Honda sees it more as a fuel cell system, using the hydrogen to produce electricity.

Re: batteries, I just don't think they're going to take off. They had their chance 100 years ago and lost against a nascent petrol technology. Ultimately people like the convenience of filling their car up quickly and going. Replacing a heavy battery or charging up over minutes isn't going to appeal to the mass market IMO. Then you have the heavy environmental costs of producing masses of batteries and the toxic waste after disposal. The problem is big enough now, what happens when hybrids form a significant minority of the car pool?

In that way hydrogen is the closest in terms of lifestyle change to petrol. You simply go to a filling station and fill the car up for another few hundred miles of motoring. If the market is going to take it up I think they will only accept something that doesn't require a big change in lifestyle.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Depends on what kind of hydrogen motor you're thinking of.

BMW intends to use hydrogen in the same way as petrol, compressing it and burning it. Honda sees it more as a fuel cell system, using the hydrogen to produce electricity.

Re: batteries, I just don't think they're going to take off. They had their chance 100 years ago and lost against a nascent petrol technology. Ultimately people like the convenience of filling their car up quickly and going. Replacing a heavy battery or charging up over minutes isn't going to appeal to the mass market IMO. Then you have the heavy environmental costs of producing masses of batteries and the toxic waste after disposal. The problem is big enough now, what happens when hybrids form a significant minority of the car pool?

In that way hydrogen is the closest in terms of lifestyle change to petrol. You simply go to a filling station and fill the car up for another few hundred miles of motoring. If the market is going to take it up I think they will only accept something that doesn't require a big change in lifestyle.

As usual, you said it better than I Dylan....lol

[Mark]

The car is part our lives, and that has been a good thing overall, so lets stop the fiction we can do without it. What we have to do is to really push to make it better in a manner that will be beneficial to all users of it and lovers of it AND the planet.

That's what so many campaigners just don't seem to understand. The car is very much part of our lives, our citys, in fact, practically the entire developed world, has grown up for cars, and you aren't going to get everyone to take the train or bus as it's just not practical. So we need to find a way to make cars work in the long term. Investment from governments in this has been very small indeed so far.

One thing we do already have in place, and can be upgraded with existing technologies and hence relatively cheaply, is the electricity grid. Now if that is used to deliver power directly to our homes to power our battery cars, or it's delivered to refineries to produce hydrogen, or even if it is delivered directly to each filling station which produces it's own hydrogen using cheap overnight electricity, remains to be seen!

[Daniel]

Depends on what kind of hydrogen motor you're thinking of.

BMW intends to use hydrogen in the same way as petrol, compressing it and burning it. Honda sees it more as a fuel cell system, using the hydrogen to produce electricity.

Re: batteries, I just don't think they're going to take off. They had their chance 100 years ago and lost against a nascent petrol technology. Ultimately people like the convenience of filling their car up quickly and going. Replacing a heavy battery or charging up over minutes isn't going to appeal to the mass market IMO. Then you have the heavy environmental costs of producing masses of batteries and the toxic waste after disposal. The problem is big enough now, what happens when hybrids form a significant minority of the car pool?

In that way hydrogen is the closest in terms of lifestyle change to petrol. You simply go to a filling station and fill the car up for another few hundred miles of motoring. If the market is going to take it up I think they will only accept something that doesn't require a big change in lifestyle.
Which all sounds nice till you look @ this -> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r.htm

Hardly technology which is ready for primetime anytime soon.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's what so many campaigners just don't seem to understand. The car is very much part of our lives, our citys, in fact, practically the entire developed world, has grown up for cars, and you aren't going to get everyone to take the train or bus as it's just not practical. So we need to find a way to make cars work in the long term. Investment from governments in this has been very small indeed so far.

Government will spend more money and get less results. The Car as it evolves will evolve when it makes business sense to, and while the green agenda is important, it will factor in when the car makers and oil companies can find a way to combine that green movement in a way they can make money off it. Cynical? No...just realistic. There is a demand from the public to make cars greener and more efficient, so in a sense, the carmakers and oil companies are reacting to this and we will see the changes I am sure. I do know this much. Outside of large cities such as London or New York, rarely does public transit meet the needs of anything close to the majority of citizens and rarely does it not need massive subsidies from government. The car isnt' going away. If public transit was so wonderful, I wouldn't be looking for a car right now.


One thing we do already have in place, and can be upgraded with existing technologies and hence relatively cheaply, is the electricity grid. Now if that is used to deliver power directly to our homes to power our battery cars, or it's delivered to refineries to produce hydrogen, or even if it is delivered directly to each filling station which produces it's own hydrogen using cheap overnight electricity, remains to be seen.!

Electric cars are a DEAD END. First off, electricity going into our homes often isn't at the voltage needed for the modern electric car, at least in Canada or the US which are on the 110v standard, so to own an electric car here means having another special outlet added to your home. Secondly, and more important, electric cars SUCK in cold weather. They don't keep their windows warm or their occupants warm without killing a lot of range, and they don't take well to snow and then the salt put on the roads to make them passable. A car that is no good in winter is useless in North America north of the Mason Dixon line and in most of the west for 5 months or more a year. That is a HUGE market. The batteries also are filled with lots of metals that are hard to get rid off afterwards, and they are heavy and a possible issue in crashes. No...the electric car MAY be made better, but why waste time spending money on this technology when Hydrogen is on the cusp of being the winner?

[Malbec]

Which all sounds nice till you look @ this -> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r.htm

Hardly technology which is ready for primetime anytime soon.

Sure, but the basic technology works and there are running prototypes already on lease to the public. Its a case of refining the technology and making it cheaper to manufacture.

I wouldn't write off hydrogen as you appear keen to, after all this time 100 years ago people like you were writing off petrol as opposed to steam or electric, after all both the latter were dependable reliable power units whilst the former was some new-fangled dirty technology that was still in its infancy.

Its still too early to see which source wins out. In fact I think different countries will find different solutions, at least initially. Even now, when we talk about oil powered cars we have rural Americans, Arabs and Australians favouring big lazy V8s, urban Americans, Asians and Brits favouring compact petrol cars whilst continental Europeans go heavily for Diesel to suit local factors.

I can see city states and small countries opting for electricity where range and recharging isn't so much of a problem whilst bigger countries may go for fuel cell or something else.

[Daniel]

Sure, but the basic technology works and there are running prototypes already on lease to the public. Its a case of refining the technology and making it cheaper to manufacture.

I wouldn't write off hydrogen as you appear keen to, after all this time 100 years ago people like you were writing off petrol as opposed to steam or electric, after all both the latter were dependable reliable power units whilst the former was some new-fangled dirty technology that was still in its infancy.

Its still too early to see which source wins out. In fact I think different countries will find different solutions, at least initially. Even now, when we talk about oil powered cars we have rural Americans, Arabs and Australians favouring big lazy V8s, urban Americans, Asians and Brits favouring compact petrol cars whilst continental Europeans go heavily for Diesel to suit local factors.

I can see city states and small countries opting for electricity where range and recharging isn't so much of a problem whilst bigger countries may go for fuel cell or something else.
All I'm saying is that I don't see why people are so keen to say that Hydrogen is definitely the future when we're probably only 10% of the way down the road to finding out the potential of Hydrogen. There are obvious problems with hydrogen as well.....

[DexDexter]

My Plants love CO2

Plants love other things that are not good for you as well. :rolleyes:

[Mark in Oshawa]

All I'm saying is that I don't see why people are so keen to say that Hydrogen is definitely the future when we're probably only 10% of the way down the road to finding out the potential of Hydrogen. There are obvious problems with hydrogen as well.....

We are farther than 10%. We are halfway. We know a car can run on Hydrogen and behave more or less like a regular car. The issue is producing the hydrogen and making enough to replace gas and diesel. This is a problem that will be solved when we figure out fusion or some other eco-friendly nuclear solution.

The problems you throw up are there if we go electrical (millions of electric cars will strain the grid just as much as the demands of a hydrogen fuel production system would) are the same.

We have two choices. Go hydrogen, or go electrical. The strain on the production of electricity will be the same, and hydrogen wont cause us to have to use lots of exotic and heavy metals making batteries, which are also a handful to dispose of and process. The water produced from "burning" hydrogen is just counterbalanced by the water we TAKE out of the water cycle to get the hydrogen......

I am sure someone with a physics background will no doubt come up with a theory or explaination of the theroy of conservation of mass and energy, but if BMW and Mazda are spending money on this hydrogen research, it says to me people smarter than us have come to the conclusion this can work.

[Daniel]

We are farther than 10%. We are halfway. We know a car can run on Hydrogen and behave more or less like a regular car. The issue is producing the hydrogen and making enough to replace gas and diesel. This is a problem that will be solved when we figure out fusion or some other eco-friendly nuclear solution.

The problems you throw up are there if we go electrical (millions of electric cars will strain the grid just as much as the demands of a hydrogen fuel production system would) are the same.

We have two choices. Go hydrogen, or go electrical. The strain on the production of electricity will be the same, and hydrogen wont cause us to have to use lots of exotic and heavy metals making batteries, which are also a handful to dispose of and process. The water produced from "burning" hydrogen is just counterbalanced by the water we TAKE out of the water cycle to get the hydrogen......

I am sure someone with a physics background will no doubt come up with a theory or explaination of the theroy of conservation of mass and energy, but if BMW and Mazda are spending money on this hydrogen research, it says to me people smarter than us have come to the conclusion this can work.
The thing is we already have an electrical distribution system in place already.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is we already have an electrical distribution system in place already.

Daniel, here is the issue. You put a MILLION cars on the grid every night in a city of 2 million, how many more kilowatts of power will THAT require? Have you seen the backlash and hoops regulatory agencies put up for utlity companies to build new plants? Windmills and solar wont meet that extra demand I can assure you. The infrastructure of the grid in many nations isn't robust enough to handle THAT demand if everyone bought the cars, and you still IGNORE my point that in cold weather, electric cars are USELESS. You lived in a country that was damn near crippled because of snow for 2 weeks, and you conveniently ignore my point that an electric car would be no good. If your power was knocked out, and your car needed charging, I guess you would also be SOL. Electric cars have been around for a 100 years and there is a reason they still are not popular. THEY do NOT work for most people. They are a toy for the rich to play with or the enviromentally paranoid to hold over the rest of us....

[Daniel]

Daniel, here is the issue. You put a MILLION cars on the grid every night in a city of 2 million, how many more kilowatts of power will THAT require? Have you seen the backlash and hoops regulatory agencies put up for utlity companies to build new plants? Windmills and solar wont meet that extra demand I can assure you. The infrastructure of the grid in many nations isn't robust enough to handle THAT demand if everyone bought the cars, and you still IGNORE my point that in cold weather, electric cars are USELESS. You lived in a country that was damn near crippled because of snow for 2 weeks, and you conveniently ignore my point that an electric car would be no good. If your power was knocked out, and your car needed charging, I guess you would also be SOL. Electric cars have been around for a 100 years and there is a reason they still are not popular. THEY do NOT work for most people. They are a toy for the rich to play with or the enviromentally paranoid to hold over the rest of us....
I'm confused. You say there's a problem with having enough power for battery powered cars yet there's going to be enough power in the future to make all that hydrogen? Which is it?

There's a difference between adding bits onto a network like telephone companies do with communications networks and making a whole new network of pipes and storage.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm confused. You say there's a problem with having enough power for battery powered cars yet there's going to be enough power in the future to make all that hydrogen? Which is it?

There's a difference between adding bits onto a network like telephone companies do with communications networks and making a whole new network of pipes and storage.

Daniel thinks Electrics are the answer NOW. So ok, put a million electric cars on the road in the next two years and watch the price of electricity skyrocket because there isn't enough new capacity to handle it. If we go Hydrogen, that demand will not come on line until the distribution of it and large scale manufacturing of it is solved. THAT is a down the road, and if a major oil company decided to go into a large scale production of hydrogen to meet the demands of a large hydrogen car market, you ever think they will just build their own nuclear power operations to operate independent of the grid? IT can be planned for. Furthermore, you still haven't solved the problems of the electric car.

Neither Electrics nor Hydrogen are ready YET, but unlike Daniel, I don't see Electrics as the future because the cars don't work and yet have had 100 years of work done on them. Hydrogen is something BMW and a few others have been working with in the last decade, and as cars work FAR better than the electric/battery counterparts. The distribution of hydrogen is the issue, and when a method of producing it in large amounts for the right price is solved, the car itself is ready. Electric cars? 100 years on, and they still wont work in adverse conditions, which you guys in the UK just had a mere taste of. Try that for 6 monthes....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Understand this Daniel, If you make an electric car go 600 kms on a charge for 40 dollars Canadian and performs as my gas powered car does, then I will be on board. I am willing to go on record that we will have a hydrogen economy before an electric car ever performs THAT well.

[Malbec]

I'm confused. You say there's a problem with having enough power for battery powered cars yet there's going to be enough power in the future to make all that hydrogen? Which is it?

There's a difference between adding bits onto a network like telephone companies do with communications networks and making a whole new network of pipes and storage.

Hydrogen can be produced without using the current electrical power system. Solar power and any good heat source can be used to produce hydrogen.

Mark is right, both the US and the UK are already near their power generation limits and both are facing the fact that their nuclear power plants are reaching the end of their lives without replacements having been sorted. We're going to be short of electrical power and won't have excess power to divert to cars.

Regarding the lack of a distribution network, going to hydrogen won't be that difficult. Looking historically, petrol beat steam to power cars. Steam already had a distribution network with plenty of people and organisations around with the ability to maintain steam engines. Noone had difficulty obtaining coal and water. Petrol had to have a distribution network built from scratch. Guess what, the consumer chose petrol over steam and the distribution network was built. People were willing to invest capital in petrol distribution knowing there was a demand. It'll be the same for hydrogen.

Building a distribution network for hydrogen won't be as hard work as building a petrol network from scratch, after all we already have expertise distributing large quantities of volatile liquid safely. Much of the hard work has already been done, we already have petrol stations which can easily be modified and the public don't need any introduction to the concept of taking their cars to such a place and filling them up with fuel.

The fact is that in Britain we've seen LPG become widely available without much of a fuss. Distributing LPG safely is a similar challenge to distributing hydrogen yet that network was built up easily without problems. If hydrogen takes off it won't be long before that becomes widely available too.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dylan, you as always build a very cogent argument. I couldn't find fault with any of your points even if I wanted to.

What people fail to forget was the ability of the gas powered car to be a better product is what won the day. The Electric car is an inferior product to the Gasoline one. Even the most ardent Green thinking car owners (an oxymoron? No, even renowned eco-activists such as Darryl Hannah and Ed Begley Jr. still own cars) either drive cars that are diesels running on recycled fry grease (Hannah) or Hybrids (Begley Jr.). Why? Because they WORK and are practical. Electric cars have never solved the issues of range and ability to handle adverse conditions. No one wants a car that will need someone to plug it in to get home, nor will anyone want a car that will not keep them cool when it is 100 degrees F or warm in the winter. IF you ask the electric to do either, the range is decimated.

The electric car is a toy....and has been. It works fine if it is a golf cart or a forklift, but forget it as practical transportation for the real world. NEVER Mind the demand for power....

[Malbec]

All I'm saying is that I don't see why people are so keen to say that Hydrogen is definitely the future when we're probably only 10% of the way down the road to finding out the potential of Hydrogen. There are obvious problems with hydrogen as well.....

Yes there are plenty of problems with hydrogen, and I don't think its definitely the future. I certainly don't think it is the ONLY future, and I think for decades we will have a wide choice of power units, from fully electric to fuel cell, petrol, Diesel and hybrids. Things will change and I think its far too early to write off petrol and Diesel for a long while. One thing is clear though, unless you live in a city state or a tiny country like Israel electric cars won't be the dominant type.

[Malbec]

Dylan, you as always build a very cogent argument. I couldn't find fault with any of your points even if I wanted to.

What people fail to forget was the ability of the gas powered car to be a better product is what won the day. The Electric car is an inferior product to the Gasoline one. Even the most ardent Green thinking car owners (an oxymoron? No, even renowned eco-activists such as Darryl Hannah and Ed Begley Jr. still own cars) either drive cars that are diesels running on recycled fry grease (Hannah) or Hybrids (Begley Jr.). Why? Because they WORK and are practical. Electric cars have never solved the issues of range and ability to handle adverse conditions. No one wants a car that will need someone to plug it in to get home, nor will anyone want a car that will not keep them cool when it is 100 degrees F or warm in the winter. IF you ask the electric to do either, the range is decimated.

The electric car is a toy....and has been. It works fine if it is a golf cart or a forklift, but forget it as practical transportation for the real world. NEVER Mind the demand for power....

Electric cars 100 years ago were a formidable opponent for petrol powered cars though, they were clean, instantly powered up and there was little risk of injury starting them up (unlike petrol). They were powerful and torquey and had fewer parts to go wrong. Yet despite these advantages, people STILL preferred petrol over electric, especially once the starter motor came along.

I can see strong arguments for electric cars now but there were reasons it lost out the first time round and they haven't really gone away....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes there are plenty of problems with hydrogen, and I don't think its definitely the future. I certainly don't think it is the ONLY future, and I think for decades we will have a wide choice of power units, from fully electric to fuel cell, petrol, Diesel and hybrids. Things will change and I think its far too early to write off petrol and Diesel for a long while. One thing is clear though, unless you live in a city state or a tiny country like Israel electric cars won't be the dominant type.

I will quibble with you a bit on this. I think it HAS to be the best bet for the future outside of continued use of petrol and diesel. Unless someone has a new leap forward in batteries (and god knows people have spent billions trying), the electric will not make it. That doesn't leave many options if the car truly will be a car. The Hybrid is a nice idea that just is a fancy gasoline powered solution that actually doesn't save enough money in fuel savings to make up for its extra costs. Never mind on the price of the titanium and exotic metals AND the costs involved in handling the wore out battery packs. The hybrid isn't an electric car, but it works AS a car, so people are given the false hope that this is the way forward.

[Malbec]

I will quibble with you a bit on this. I think it HAS to be the best bet for the future outside of continued use of petrol and diesel. Unless someone has a new leap forward in batteries (and god knows people have spent billions trying), the electric will not make it. That doesn't leave many options if the car truly will be a car. The Hybrid is a nice idea that just is a fancy gasoline powered solution that actually doesn't save enough money in fuel savings to make up for its extra costs. Never mind on the price of the titanium and exotic metals AND the costs involved in handling the wore out battery packs. The hybrid isn't an electric car, but it works AS a car, so people are given the false hope that this is the way forward.

Electric cars DO make sense if you're going to use it for short trips round the city or for commuting, just as you would currently use a Smart. On the European continent there has been a long history of people driving tiny petrol engined two seat cars around town, cars that would make a Smart look like a truck and have performance not much better than a current electric car. It would not be difficult to market electric cars at those users who don't expect any more from their cars.

What you are talking about is a replacement for the 'do-anything' vehicle, something you could trundle to work and the shops in yet is capable of crossing the country in comfort if need be. There, I agree electric isn't the answer but smart hybrid solutions could have a role there.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Electric cars DO make sense if you're going to use it for short trips round the city or for commuting, just as you would currently use a Smart. On the European continent there has been a long history of people driving tiny petrol engined two seat cars around town, cars that would make a Smart look like a truck and have performance not much better than a current electric car. It would not be difficult to market electric cars at those users who don't expect any more from their cars.

What you are talking about is a replacement for the 'do-anything' vehicle, something you could trundle to work and the shops in yet is capable of crossing the country in comfort if need be. There, I agree electric isn't the answer but smart hybrid solutions could have a role there.

I suppose in city applications, there could be uses for the electric, but again, in a climate that is temperate and there are locations to keep the car on charge.

The do-anything vehicle is the staple of the car market. For the price of a car, you HAVE to use it for more than casual use. If a real car costs a minimum of 12000 dollars new, then where is the pricepoint for an electric car that has no range and isn't useful every day in most of the climatic zones in the western world? The market finds the fault with technology that doesn't work and either it is made to work at a price that makes sense, or it is bypassed. The electric car has been bypassed....

[Daniel]

lol lets just ignore all the downsides of hydrogen. Tbh I can't be bothered with this.....

[Malbec]

lol lets just ignore all the downsides of hydrogen. Tbh I can't be bothered with this.....

I believe we've addressed the ones you've raised already without a counterargument from you.

I'm deeply interested in this subject Daniel, you clearly are too, why not list all those downsides of hydrogen and also address the downsides of electric cars which have been raised too?

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Not a small problem you have to admit and one that affects hydrogen from the time it's produced to the time it's used in the fuel cell or burnt. Also remember that hydrogen doesn't have the lubricating properties of fuel so that opens a whole can of worms with hydrogen combustion.

I realise electric cars have their problems but as I said if you make the batteries standard/modular and quick to swap out then this makes the range argument a lot less of a problem.

Sure batteries have their problems in the cold but I'll wager that if better insulated and perhaps heated slightly that this would help.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Not a small problem you have to admit and one that affects hydrogen from the time it's produced to the time it's used in the fuel cell or burnt. Also remember that hydrogen doesn't have the lubricating properties of fuel so that opens a whole can of worms with hydrogen combustion..

Ceramic coatings and different alloys are being used in this research right now. I figure this is a solvable issue. If not, hydrogen fuel cells powering electric motors will be more in line with your feelings on electrics.


I realise electric cars have their problems but as I said if you make the batteries standard/modular and quick to swap out then this makes the range argument a lot less of a problem.

Sure batteries have their problems in the cold but I'll wager that if better insulated and perhaps heated slightly that this would help.

Batteries if heated slightly would have to get the power from where? Once the car is rolling, the vehicle is in cold soak mode when it is -5 C, and THAT is a mile temp in the winter for all of Canada almost not to mention a good chunk of the US and Europe. You still have to siphon off power from that battery to keep the windows unfrosted, the radio on and HEAT for the people inside. Sorry, you solve all that, then you can talk to me about battery swapping stations. Batteries are large...how much infrastructure on street corners will that take and who will pay for it? Chargers all over the city to park the car at to charge up? Who pays? the consumer for sure, but will it be costly?

There is a lot of things to figure out no matter whether we go electric or hydgrogen for sure, but for Dylan and I guess we made up our mind on this one. I have used too many things that don't take to cold well that fail, and batteries are at the top of the list.

[schmenke]

You're absolutely correct Mark. I'd be surprised if a battery-powered vehicle would be able to travel more than a few miles in -20 deg. temps, pushing through snow-covered roads :s
Nope, battery technology simply is not a viable option in our climate.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You're absolutely correct Mark. I'd be surprised if a battery-powered vehicle would be able to travel more than a few miles in -20 deg. temps, pushing through snow-covered roads :s
Nope, battery technology simply is not a viable option in our climate.

Schmenke, That is what I find frustrating when Daniel or someone else tells me how the electric car is doable, and points to something like the Tesla or some little car somewhere and I laugh. We do not live in a unique climate, most of the northern US, Russia, Western Europe all have weather conditions that can be like ours. It is most of the car buying world as it stands....and it is totally too hostile for part of the year to battery powered anything....

Electric cars looked to be the way to go in 1901 when the car was a rich man's toy...but Henry Ford and others showed just how useful the car would be to the middle class, and THAT is why we have the IC engine...

[Daniel]

Schmenke, That is what I find frustrating when Daniel or someone else tells me how the electric car is doable, and points to something like the Tesla or some little car somewhere and I laugh. We do not live in a unique climate, most of the northern US, Russia, Western Europe all have weather conditions that can be like ours. It is most of the car buying world as it stands....and it is totally too hostile for part of the year to battery powered anything....

Electric cars looked to be the way to go in 1901 when the car was a rich man's toy...but Henry Ford and others showed just how useful the car would be to the middle class, and THAT is why we have the IC engine...
The thing is just as research is going into hydrogen there is research going into what benefits carbon nanotubes can give to batteries so don't write batteries off just yet.

[schmenke]

Long live cumbustion!

:D

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is just as research is going into hydrogen there is research going into what benefits carbon nanotubes can give to batteries so don't write batteries off just yet.

Oh I wont write them off, but as I said Daniel, we have had batteries as part our lives for years. Making car batteries last to turn over motors at -40 C has pushed the technology forward, but as any Canadian who ever got up at 6am on a -30 or -40 day (I haven't seen but a few of those, but in western Canada or Northern Ontario and Quebec they see those) to go to work, the last thing you want to hear is your battery dying before the engine starts. We are VERY aware of the limitations of batteries in cold, so it probably colours my faith in the technology. Hey, if some car maker out there makes an electric car that WORKS, then hey, I am happy to be wrong, but that is the standard I am going to hold it to. It has to survive cold and long periods of it. Right now, It isn't even CLOSE.

[Malbec]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Not a small problem you have to admit and one that affects hydrogen from the time it's produced to the time it's used in the fuel cell or burnt. Also remember that hydrogen doesn't have the lubricating properties of fuel so that opens a whole can of worms with hydrogen combustion.

I realise electric cars have their problems but as I said if you make the batteries standard/modular and quick to swap out then this makes the range argument a lot less of a problem.

Sure batteries have their problems in the cold but I'll wager that if better insulated and perhaps heated slightly that this would help.

Yep that is definitely a problem, probably the single biggest problem with hydrogen. I reckon its less of a problem with fuel cell merely because you can have a large battery to supply the motor if the hydrogen has run out to get you to the local supply station at least.

I'm sure engineers could find a solution of sorts though, even if it is as inelegant as having a big battery on board or supplying a small hydrogen generator for the home for emergencies.

I've wondered about modular/swappable batteries and there's one big hitch. Essentially you're saying that there should be a one size fits all battery, fine in principle but that means that a large family car will by definition have a much shorter range than a low end but lighter two seater. I don't think the consumer will like that.

BTW Mark, Canada isn't the centre of the universe. I know a few people who own G-Wizs in London and who aren't environmentalists by any stretch of the imagination. That crude electric car certainly fulfils all their expectations already with few problems, and new ones in the pipeline will be better. Electric cars have a niche to fill and they fill it nicely.

[Daniel]

Yep that is definitely a problem, probably the single biggest problem with hydrogen. I reckon its less of a problem with fuel cell merely because you can have a large battery to supply the motor if the hydrogen has run out to get you to the local supply station at least.

I'm sure engineers could find a solution of sorts though, even if it is as inelegant as having a big battery on board or supplying a small hydrogen generator for the home for emergencies.

I've wondered about modular/swappable batteries and there's one big hitch. Essentially you're saying that there should be a one size fits all battery, fine in principle but that means that a large family car will by definition have a much shorter range than a low end but lighter two seater. I don't think the consumer will like that.

BTW Mark, Canada isn't the centre of the universe. I know a few people who own G-Wizs in London and who aren't environmentalists by any stretch of the imagination. That crude electric car certainly fulfils all their expectations already with few problems, and new ones in the pipeline will be better. Electric cars have a niche to fill and they fill it nicely.
http://www.dailytech.com/Hope+for+Hydrogen+Company+to+Build+Series+of+Stati ons+on+East+Coast/article17537.htm

interesting :) Personally I think the fact that this not unsubstantial installation can only power 10-15 cars a day makes it unfeasible but still it's a start and it's interesting nonetheless

[Mark in Oshawa]

...
BTW Mark, Canada isn't the centre of the universe. I know a few people who own G-Wizs in London and who aren't environmentalists by any stretch of the imagination. That crude electric car certainly fulfils all their expectations already with few problems, and new ones in the pipeline will be better. Electric cars have a niche to fill and they fill it nicely.

No...I can only say though we are not the only cold climate. Half of the US has similar weather to me, as does Russia, parts of China, Korea, Japan and Northern Europe. If the battery powered car wont work here in the soft part of Canada, it likely wont work in about 60% of the markets who are buying cars. It isn't a smart business plan to develop something that wont work half of the year in 60% of the car markets of the world.

G-whiz's I am sure work great in congested London, but public transit there is so superior to most cars, I don't see any point in having a car to travel in the inner city of a metro location where there is an extensive subway and bus service. Where the electric car works in the same congested places cars are not as efficient to an extent as transit. Again, until that car is a CAR with all that entails and is an all weather solution, then it wont really sell to the masses. I don't care what country you are in, people buy cars usually because they want that personal convenience and the ability to carry a family possibly.

[Daniel]

No...I can only say though we are not the only cold climate. Half of the US has similar weather to me, as does Russia, parts of China, Korea, Japan and Northern Europe. If the battery powered car wont work here in the soft part of Canada, it likely wont work in about 60% of the markets who are buying cars. It isn't a smart business plan to develop something that wont work half of the year in 60% of the car markets of the world.

G-whiz's I am sure work great in congested London, but public transit there is so superior to most cars, I don't see any point in having a car to travel in the inner city of a metro location where there is an extensive subway and bus service. Where the electric car works in the same congested places cars are not as efficient to an extent as transit. Again, until that car is a CAR with all that entails and is an all weather solution, then it wont really sell to the masses. I don't care what country you are in, people buy cars usually because they want that personal convenience and the ability to carry a family possibly.
Yeah mass transit is definitely the way for day to day travel in big cities. When I was back in Oz I got a lift to the train station every day and then walked to work and then took the bus back and then walked home EVERY day. Only ever used a car once in just under 2 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah mass transit is definitely the way for day to day travel in big cities. When I was back in Oz I got a lift to the train station every day and then walked to work and then took the bus back and then walked home EVERY day. Only ever used a car once in just under 2 years.

That doesn't really work as well as one would like in smaller centers like mine. We are a one car family right now and I am learning bus service once every 30 minutes sucks in the middle of winter...

[Daniel]

That doesn't really work as well as one would like in smaller centers like mine. We are a one car family right now and I am learning bus service once every 30 minutes sucks in the middle of winter...
Ditto. Before we got the Fiat we were a one car family and shall we say every day past the ETA for the car we went Caroline was getting more and more pissed at that little car for not turning up....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ditto. Before we got the Fiat we were a one car family and shall we say every day past the ETA for the car we went Caroline was getting more and more pissed at that little car for not turning up....

I have to drive to Toronto 2 times a day right now if I want the car. Lucky for me, the boss works in the Eastern suburb of Scarborough and I can be there and back within the hour because she works a shift that starts after the morning rush and post the evening one. That said, I get another job, we will almost certainly need to put another car on the road.

[Malbec]

No...I can only say though we are not the only cold climate. Half of the US has similar weather to me, as does Russia, parts of China, Korea, Japan and Northern Europe. If the battery powered car wont work here in the soft part of Canada, it likely wont work in about 60% of the markets who are buying cars. It isn't a smart business plan to develop something that wont work half of the year in 60% of the car markets of the world.

You raise some interesting examples there.

Lets take Northern Europe. In the UK, milk has been delivered to most urban homes for the past 40 years whatever the weather by electric milk floats. These things were crude way back when, now they look like museum pieces but you'll still find them working hard whatever the weather, whatever the temperature. So electric power works in cold weather.

Then you've got the Think which was one of the first properly usable electric cars on sale, designed in Norway where it is selling quite well. Norway is on a par with Canada when it comes to cold weather I believe. Of course there is the G-wiz which is selling well in London, still part of Northern Europe.

How about Denmark, I heard its pretty cold there too. They've got so little confidence in electric cars that they ran a pilot study with Better Place which found that lo and behold, electric cars do work in Denmark too and people are happy with them. Along with Israel, Denmark is investing 100s of millions of Euros to set up loads of electric charging points and battery swap stations and to lease thousands of electric cars.

How about China? Ever been there? Most Chinese can't be arsed to pedal their bicycles everywhere so they trade up to scooters as soon as they can afford them. Thing is noone buys petrol scooters if they can help it because electricity there is cheap as chips and petrol isn't. The roads there are already clogged up with electric powered scooters and bicycles.

Then you've got companies like BYD that build electric cars for the Chinese market and who are supposed to have more advanced technology than guys like GM and Toyota. Warren Buffett was so impressed by their chances that he invested $230 million into buying 10% of it. He's not often wrong.

I'm afraid events have already overtaken you to some extent Mark. In urban areas electric cars make sense. They may not work well in cold weather but that hasn't stopped them in the past and I don't think its going to stop them in the future.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You raise some interesting examples there.

Lets take Northern Europe. In the UK, milk has been delivered to most urban homes for the past 40 years whatever the weather by electric milk floats. These things were crude way back when, now they look like museum pieces but you'll still find them working hard whatever the weather, whatever the temperature. So electric power works in cold weather.

Then you've got the Think which was one of the first properly usable electric cars on sale, designed in Norway where it is selling quite well. Norway is on a par with Canada when it comes to cold weather I believe. Of course there is the G-wiz which is selling well in London, still part of Northern Europe.

How about Denmark, I heard its pretty cold there too. They've got so little confidence in electric cars that they ran a pilot study with Better Place which found that lo and behold, electric cars do work in Denmark too and people are happy with them. Along with Israel, Denmark is investing 100s of millions of Euros to set up loads of electric charging points and battery swap stations and to lease thousands of electric cars.

How about China? Ever been there? Most Chinese can't be arsed to pedal their bicycles everywhere so they trade up to scooters as soon as they can afford them. Thing is noone buys petrol scooters if they can help it because electricity there is cheap as chips and petrol isn't. The roads there are already clogged up with electric powered scooters and bicycles.

Then you've got companies like BYD that build electric cars for the Chinese market and who are supposed to have more advanced technology than guys like GM and Toyota. Warren Buffett was so impressed by their chances that he invested $230 million into buying 10% of it. He's not often wrong.

I'm afraid events have already overtaken you to some extent Mark. In urban areas electric cars make sense. They may not work well in cold weather but that hasn't stopped them in the past and I don't think its going to stop them in the future.

Here is the thing Dylan: When you take an electric battery with around a 100 mile range, and you ask it to not only power a motor, but keep the windsheild clear, and keep the occupants warm, you reduce it's range radically. Yes, they use G-whizs and the milk floats but their range is limited. In cities, I can see using them, but I suspect the Norwegians aren't too impressed with them if you get stuck in snow or servere cold. I know batteries are getting better, but I also know at - 20C how happy my battery in my car is to turn over the motor. I can tell you that you should talk to the Norwegians and the like and find out how well those cars work in that cold...

Hey..if if works, and people like it, and car companies can make money doing it, fill your boots...but consider me not really interested. A limited range car doesn't work for me. Just driving my wife to work is a 70 km round trip.....

The reason GM never put their electric car projects to test anywhere but Arizona and Southern California was to avoid the cold, and there, they discovered that the A/C on hot days was much the same as the heat...it really worked on the battery. Electric cars are constantly compromising their range for the hotel loads people expect from their cars....