Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[RWD]

You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars.  I'm just pointing out that you can get a new Model 3 for $35k after incentives.  That's pretty affordable for a new car, regardless of engine type.

WHAT??? facepunch

Get a used one for 5K and save the 30K for 100 dollar each month for free!

I wonder how BYD will fare in the US ocne they come over. I guess their prices will be lower.

Tyson said it was affordable for a new car. Comparing used cars there are several EV options in the $5k-10k range (Leaf, Spark, Focus, 500e, i-MiEV).

[TomTX]

Agree with RWD here.

[Frugal Lizard]

Is the actual availability of EV's either new or used impacting their popularity? 

Anec-data
We ordered our EV6 in mid March. It was delivered in mid-December. Had it not arrived by Christmas we would have bought any vehicle. Our son was starting a job in January in another city and we couldn't stomach being car-less all week in the winter. I am recovering from an injury and can only walk short distances slowly. No walking in slush (really really hurts) or ice at all.

Friends have ordered their EV but in the meantime replaced their dead Subaru with another old Subaru. They were told in Nov 2022 that the wait would be as long as 2 years.

The sales statistics don't show a wait list, or the KIA website crashing for pre-order due to demand to put down $500CAN for the option to order a car when they start taking orders.

[Tyson]

You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars.  I'm just pointing out that you can get a new Model 3 for $35k after incentives.  That's pretty affordable for a new car, regardless of engine type.

WHAT??? facepunch

Get a used one for 5K and save the 30K for 100 dollar each month for free!

I wonder how BYD will fare in the US ocne they come over. I guess their prices will be lower.

I think you missed my follow up post:

Not that any of that would apply to me personally as I have never bought a car new, and don't plan to, ever.  I'll just wait on the sidelines till volume production is achieved and then the used prices come down and I'll snag one used eventually.  But that's mostly just becuase I am a cheap bastard :D

[FINate]

I was please to read today that Idaho is getting funding as part of the Infrastructure Act to put towards the EV charging network over the next 5 years. It's not a lot of money, but every bit helps.

Every state is getting EV charging money from the Feds and had to submit a plan for Federal approval.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It's just nice to see the money making its way down to actual local budgets. I think charging infrastructure is the key to getting more EV adoption, so happy to see this happening. And glad that Tesla is opening up at least part of their charging network so they can access these funds.

[BuffaloStache]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago, and it's supposed to arrive sometime in the next 2 weeks. This is primarily because my 17 year old Subaru is finally starting to go on me (engine overheating/seal issue so it can't be driven more than ~30 min at a time). I'm pretty stoked!

During December and January I test drove lots of EVs: Nissan Leaf, VW ID.4, Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Chevy Bolt (regular), and the Bolt EUV. I tried very hard (called over 10 Ford dealerships in 2 states) but failed to secure a test drive for a Mustang Mach-e. As luck would have it I also went on a business trip to LA recently and had a Tesla Model 3 as a rental car (Hertz gave it to me for no added cost!), and I was able to test drive a Tesla Model Y from a friend who recently got one. If people are really interested I can post my notes from most/all of those test drives.

In the end I picked the Bolt EUV because the Bolt/Bolt EUV options really just seemed to be the best value, they were available with relatively low wait times (3 months -vs- 12+ months for some, as Frugal Lizard states), and we have an ICE car already so this will never be used for road trips (almost exclusively for commuting, around-the-town driving, and drives to hikes with the family). I'm getting a dedicated Level 2 charger installed in my garage and future-proofing the installation to allow for higher amperage in the future (+ a much needed panel upgrade at ~50% of cost thanks to local rebates!) so the slower Level 3 charging speeds of the Bolt EUV shouldn't impact me much. When I test drove most of the other cars, I kept thinking that even without the Federal Tax rebates, the Bolt EUV delivers ~80% of the features and drive experience of most of the other EVs with a very respectable range, for >$15,000 less than most of the other comparable options. I'll report back here in a month or so to report on my initial experiences.

Final point- I definitely wanted an EV so I sought one out, but this is the first time that I went to buy a car and felt like there were at least a couple of options in the price range I was considering with ~250+ mi range. I also never thought that I would be someone to buy a Chevy... To me that's a win overall.

[2sk22]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago, and it's supposed to arrive sometime in the next 2 weeks. This is primarily because my 17 year old Subaru is finally starting to go on me (engine overheating/seal issue so it can't be driven more than ~30 min at a time). I'm pretty stoked!

During December and January I test drove lots of EVs: Nissan Leaf, VW ID.4, Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Chevy Bolt (regular), and the Bolt EUV. I tried very hard (called over 10 Ford dealerships in 2 states) but failed to secure a test drive for a Mustang Mach-e. As luck would have it I also went on a business trip to LA recently and had a Tesla Model 3 as a rental car (Hertz gave it to me for no added cost!), and I was able to test drive a Tesla Model Y from a friend who recently got one. If people are really interested I can post my notes from most/all of those test drives.

In the end I picked the Bolt EUV because the Bolt/Bolt EUV options really just seemed to be the best value, they were available with relatively low wait times (3 months -vs- 12+ months for some, as Frugal Lizard states), and we have an ICE car already so this will never be used for road trips (almost exclusively for commuting, around-the-town driving, and drives to hikes with the family). I'm getting a dedicated Level 2 charger installed in my garage and future-proofing the installation to allow for higher amperage in the future (+ a much needed panel upgrade at ~50% of cost thanks to local rebates!) so the slower Level 3 charging speeds of the Bolt EUV shouldn't impact me much. When I test drove most of the other cars, I kept thinking that even without the Federal Tax rebates, the Bolt EUV delivers ~80% of the features and drive experience of most of the other EVs with a very respectable range, for >$15,000 less than most of the other comparable options. I'll report back here in a month or so to report on my initial experiences.

Final point- I definitely wanted an EV so I sought one out, but this is the first time that I went to buy a car and felt like there were at least a couple of options in the price range I was considering with ~250+ mi range. I also never thought that I would be someone to buy a Chevy... To me that's a win overall.

I would be very interested in your notes about the driving experience on these cars - do post. As it happens, I have independently come to the conclusion that the Bolt EUV is the only EV that on the market that currently appeals to me. I don't want a big battery but I do want a high level of utility. Hopefully more such vehicles will come on the market in the next few years when we are ready to buy an EV in household.

[BuffaloStache]

Alright, as requested I'll try to post ~1 set of notes/reviews per week about the EVs I've test driven recently, starting with the OG Nissan Leaf. Sorry if my notes seem staccato and sporadic, but I literally took them on my phone during/after each Test Drive. Also, if folks think this would be better off as a standalone thread instead of in this one, let me know and I can move it/create a new thread.

---***Nissan Leaf***---
Test drove in December 2022.
1. Overall Impressions:
62 kW - 2020 (I drove this one). Seemed nice, but literally a "normal" car. Nothing to write home about, but definitely gets the job done. The driving experience was very similar to a Toyota Camry, Kia or other economy sedan. While most other EVs have a 'futuristic' look and feel, I was surprised how basic, or even dated this car look/felt. The acceleration was definitely better than an ICE car, but still not 'sporty' by any means. The interior is straight up plain- utilitarian and if it weren't for the different looking shifting buttons, you would have no idea you were in an Electric Car.  I'm a fan of a heated steering wheel + heated seats, but they are only available on the Plus trim level.

No power adjustment of driver seat (a feature my wife really likes), but on SL trim they have it (Nissan stopped making that trim level in 2021).

*no spare tire.
*Roadside assistance for 3 yrs new, or 2 yrs with Certified Pre-Owned (CPO). Guy recommends doing that instead of using $300 kit to patch your tire.


2. Range / In cold weather?:
40 kW is ~150 mi
62 kW is over 200 mi
For either, in cold weather it reduces ~15%+, depending on how cold.

3. Wait List duration:
Lots of Used inventory that is available immediately.
For new, probably 2-3 months for bigger battery version.

5. Any Warranty offered, or at-home charging subsidy?:
*Roadside assistance for 3 yrs new, or 2 yrs with CPO.
8 yr 100,000 mi for battery. Electrical is 3 yr/ 36k mi. Lifetime power train warranty for motor itself.

CPO - 7 yr (from original purchase date)/ 100,00 mi


6. What Charging Plug type and any charging networks/public chargers?:
EVgo, Electrify America, etc. If you have their apps, you can connect credit cards.

Comes with "COMBO" charger that can use either level 1 or 2.


7. Battery (kWh capacity?) Thermal Management, Maintenance?
--- For Gen 1 Leaf, there are 12 battery bars. 1st bar = ~15% capacity, all other bars are ~6%.
I asked about the air cooling of the Leaf battery, and how that's a disadvantage. He claims that air cooling means it's cheaper and easier to replace

Also, basically no maintenance besides once a year tire rotation + check of the brakes. And refilling windshield wiper fluid as needed.

8. MSRP:
For "S"- $29,860 before rebates
For "SV Plus"- $38,020

Can add heatd seats to "S" for ~$500


10. What Gov subsidies is this car eligible for?:
$7500 federal, but may be reducing next yr. {I think at the time of posting this, they may still be eligible but will likely be reducing down to $3750}
$2000 State
$1000 Xcel energy (my utility company) rebate, valid only for certain brands.

Dealer can take off State + Xcel rebates from the purchase price of car. Federal rebate comes off at next tax yr/tax filing season.

11. Pre-Owned or Leasing options?: {I asked this because it was my first test drive of an EV and just wanted to get all the info. These prices are from late 2022 in my location, so YMMV now}
-2020 S Plus- $29,000
-2020 SL Plus - $32,500
-2020 A Plus - $29,000
-2022 SL Plus (w/ winter tires) $36,000

[nereo]

I love this @BuffaloStache  - please keep it up!

[alcon835]

If people are really interested I can post my notes from most/all of those test drives.

Yes, please! I already love the leaf one you posted and look forward to others!

I'll report back here in a month or so to report on my initial experiences.

Yes to this too, please!!!

[Just Joe]

I saw that the new Leafs come with a 60 kwh battery now, so 2 kwh less. Since the car gets about 3.4 kwh / mile this isn't a big deal. Maybe 7 miles less range.

Edit: Leafs can be had with two batteries - the 40 kwh and the 60 kwh.

Wondering if there is a benefit to the owner or simply lower production costs for Nissan.

[LD_TAndK]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago

Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?

[nereo]

I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4H
Go figure.

[dandarc]

I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4H
Go figure.

They were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.

[englishteacheralex]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago

Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?

Can't answer for this person, but we had decided on an EUV because of the following:

1. It was way harder to find a Bolt EV than an EUV (one dealership told me this was because Domino's Pizza had ordered a fleet of them for delivery service, which...I dunno if that's true, but it's interesting)

2. The price for an EUV was not much more than an EV, but it had more space. Seemed like better value to us.

However, as I noted earlier, we wound up buying a used 2020 Leaf because we couldn't wait as long as it would take to get a Bolt. We did the dumb thing and waited for our old car to die before we went looking for a new car.

[BuffaloStache]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago

Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?

Sorry for the delay, I can answer now. We chose the Bolt EUV over the regular Bolt primarily for 4 reasons (in order of importance for me/my family right now);
1. Added rear seat space. We have two kids in carseats and so we wanted a car that would give us a little extra room for that, and the loss of ~12 mi of range didn't seem that bad. But we also still didn't want a 'big' SUV (not sure why everyone is obsessed with SUVs these days...).
2. Availability. Despite still waiting ~2.5 months, as @englishteacheralex says it's much easier to get an EUV in a reasonable time. I've joined several Bolt/EUV specific forums now and many have waited 8+ months for a regular Bolt. We needed a replacement car ASAP.
3. Planned use. We are unfortunately a two car family, by necessity right now. Our other car is an all-wheel drive ICE station wagon. This car will be used 95% of the time for commuting, running errands around town, going to nearby hikes in the summers, etc. Our plans are to never use it for road tripping.
4. This one is fairly anti-mustachian, but SuperCruise. It's one of the best rated L2 driver assist technologies, should help on my commutes (I already checked the maps & the primary highway I use to get to work is SuperCruise mapped). I figure even if it's a gimmick and I don't use it after the first year, it'll still be something cool to have.

And answering a question you didn't ask, we mainly looked at the Bolt/EUV family -vs- other EVs primarily for the overall value. Even with other models becoming re-eligible for the US Federal $7500 Tax credit, and Tesla's insane price fluctuations this year, in my opinion the Bolt/EUV cars still are an amazing value for their price points. For comparison, the MSRP is similar to the larger battery Nissan Leaf, but the Bolt/EUV are leaps and bounds ahead of that car, offering most of the features found in cars that are ~double the cost.   

[scottish]

I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4H
Go figure.

They were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.

Apparently some BEV proponents are condemning Toyota for pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries over the last 10 years with the result that they don't have much in the way of BEV offerings.   I find it a little bizarre.   If Toyota made a bad strategic choice, well the market will force them to fix it.   But no, Toyota is evil because they still sell petroleum powered vehicles. 

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

[dandarc]

In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago

Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?

Sorry for the delay, I can answer now. We chose the Bolt EUV over the regular Bolt primarily for 4 reasons (in order of importance for me/my family right now);
1. Added rear seat space. We have two kids in carseats and so we wanted a car that would give us a little extra room for that, and the loss of ~12 mi of range didn't seem that bad. But we also still didn't want a 'big' SUV (not sure why everyone is obsessed with SUVs these days...).
2. Availability. Despite still waiting ~2.5 months, as @englishteacheralex says it's much easier to get an EUV in a reasonable time. I've joined several Bolt/EUV specific forums now and many have waited 8+ months for a regular Bolt. We needed a replacement car ASAP.
3. Planned use. We are unfortunately a two car family, by necessity right now. Our other car is an all-wheel drive ICE station wagon. This car will be used 95% of the time for commuting, running errands around town, going to nearby hikes in the summers, etc. Our plans are to never use it for road tripping.
4. This one is fairly anti-mustachian, but SuperCruise. It's one of the best rated L2 driver assist technologies, should help on my commutes (I already checked the maps & the primary highway I use to get to work is SuperCruise mapped). I figure even if it's a gimmick and I don't use it after the first year, it'll still be something cool to have.

And answering a question you didn't ask, we mainly looked at the Bolt/EUV family -vs- other EVs primarily for the overall value. Even with other models becoming re-eligible for the US Federal $7500 Tax credit, and Tesla's insane price fluctuations this year, in my opinion the Bolt/EUV cars still are an amazing value for their price points. For comparison, the MSRP is similar to the larger battery Nissan Leaf, but the Bolt/EUV are leaps and bounds ahead of that car, offering most of the features found in cars that are ~double the cost.   

+1 on SuperCruise. That's the one thing I liked about the Tesla I tried for a week in December - the autopilot really did make the highway driving so much better. Overall I wouldn't buy a Tesla after that (unless price comes way down), but I will probably prioritize the fancy cruise control in whatever the next car is. In 5-10 years or possibly longer when its time.

[pecunia]

I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4H
Go figure.

They were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.

Apparently some BEV proponents are condemning Toyota for pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries over the last 10 years with the result that they don't have much in the way of BEV offerings.   I find it a little bizarre.   If Toyota made a bad strategic choice, well the market will force them to fix it.   But no, Toyota is evil because they still sell petroleum powered vehicles. 

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

It's not just hydrogen.  There are millions of internal combustion engines that will be around for the next 30 years.  It really makes a lot of sense to make synthetic net emission free (or low) fuel.  Process heat for the manufacturing could make use of process heat from one of these new types of small modular reactors.  It may sound a little crazy but so did electric cars a few years back.

[RWD]

I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4H
Go figure.

They were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.

Apparently some BEV proponents are condemning Toyota for pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries over the last 10 years with the result that they don't have much in the way of BEV offerings.   I find it a little bizarre.   If Toyota made a bad strategic choice, well the market will force them to fix it.   But no, Toyota is evil because they still sell petroleum powered vehicles. 

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

Toyota isn't evil because they picked a losing development path. They've been evil because they are spreading propaganda and actively lobbying against electrification.
https://insideevs.com/news/620906/toyota-ranked-among-oil-companies-anti-climate-policy/
https://electrek.co/2021/11/11/how-toyota-sneakily-spreads-anti-ev-propaganda-in-japan/
https://insideevs.com/news/547809/toyota-team-japan/
https://insideevs.com/news/534262/all-ev-plans-threaten-japan/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-hydrogen.html

[RWD]

On hydrogen specifically... it has its uses but personal passenger vehicles is not one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmBkvrO0Dg

[AlanStache]

Mildly off topic but, hydrogen may have some use in some parts of aviation.  I had some passing professional involvement with the project.   

https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/02/universal-hydrogen-takes-to-the-air-with-the-largest-hydrogen-fuel-cell-ever-to-fly/

What was flown was very much a demonstration for the investors, it still requires significant work both the airport - fueling delivery system and the onboard systems integration. 

[Just Joe]

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

Last I read you can go further with the electricity in a BEV than used to bottle hydrogen for consumption in a fuel cell vehicle. I'll concede that aviation hydrogen will be necessary for the foreseeable future. Is it still true that a BEV can go further on the electricity used to refine oil into gasoline than the gasoline will move an ICE vehicle?

Seems like battery tech research is still a logical path. Still want to see cities re-developed into something not so car-centric.

[GuitarStv]

I've been hearing about how hydrogen is a totally awesome fuel source that's just around the corner for thirty years now and have been wildly underwhelmed by everything presented thus far.

[StashingAway]

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

Last I read you can go further with the electricity in a BEV than used to bottle hydrogen for consumption in a fuel cell vehicle. I'll concede that aviation hydrogen will be necessary for the foreseeable future. Is it still true that a BEV can go further on the electricity used to refine oil into gasoline than the gasoline will move an ICE vehicle?

Seems like battery tech research is still a logical path. Still want to see cities re-developed into something not so car-centric.

Per kWh that is certainly true- the net efficiency of an EV is higher than that of a gas vehicle, even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity. Power plants are much better at using the energy in fossil fuels as they have systems to make use of waste heat and can be optimized for efficiency rather than on-demand power (something which vehicles are notoriously hard on).

The wording of that makes it sound like batteries can make the cars go further than hydrogen, which in practicality is the opposite of hydrogen fuel cells. The energy density of fuel cells is much higher, which is why it is particularly beneficial for weight sensitive applications such as airplanes and long-haul trucking (in theory, as GuitarStv said, this doesn't pan out in the market apparently).

As renewables penetrate the market, the efficiency argument of BEV vs Hydrogen loses some steam (although it is still valid); it doesn't really matter as much how particularly efficient a process is if the energy is all coming from renewable sources. One of the particular problems with BEVs is their overall vehicle weight, which is higher than their ICE equivalents. This has a lot of downstream consequences that are not accounted for when doing BEV vs ICE vs whatever.

Heavier cars mean more tire and road wear. Tires are the second leading contributor to microplastics in our immediate environment- meaning rivers and air around us, but excluding the ocean. Heavier cars also cause more damage in accidents, cost more to ship, use more raw materials, etc.

All of this is to say that BEVs are quite efficient in terms of kWh used for propulsion, they are less efficient in other ways that are significant but overlooked. I would still rather new vehicles be BEV than an ICE.

[TomTX]

I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies.     With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.

Why do you think that? Hydrogen has rather severe limitations.

1) 90+% of hydrogen is very inefficiently produced from natural gas, with all pollution released to atmosphere. You would use less natural gas with a CNG ICE car than a hydrogen car and NG sourced hydrogen.

2) Oh, electrolytic hydrogen? Sure! Now you need 3x the electricity production compared to an equivalent BEV. Plus the capex for electrolysis units and 10,000PSI pumps and tanks. Plus 3x the electricity transmission infrastructure.

3) Energy density of hydrogen is piss poor. The least-energy-dense fossil fuel commonly used is natural gas (methane). Hydrogen needs 3x the volume (or 3x the pressure, PV=nRT) for equivalent energy storage. This kills the usefulness of converting existing NG pipelines to hydrogen. This is without even considering the tankage requirements.

4) Hydrogen is challenging to handle. Tiny molecule, so leaks are harder to prevent - and it can cause metal embrittlement/cracking failures in metals, such as steel pipelines...

[TomTX]

As renewables penetrate the market, the efficiency argument of BEV vs Hydrogen loses some steam (although it is still valid); it doesn't really matter as much how particularly efficient a process is if the energy is all coming from renewable sources.

...except that you need 3x as many solar panels/wind turbines/geothermal plants compared to just using a BEV. Plus all the tankage, 10,000 PSI pumps, rather expensive electrolysis units, etc.

[BicycleB]

Re hydrogen, linked article suggests there are areas where internal processes in the earth generate hydrogen that could be harvested. Maybe we don't need electrolysis?

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

[TomTX]

Re hydrogen, linked article suggests there are areas where internal processes in the earth generate hydrogen that could be harvested. Maybe we don't need electrolysis?

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

Wake me up when somebody is actually collecting and processing the hydrogen at reasonable volume.

[LennStar]

I am sure that will happen shortly after fusion reactors are giving us all the energy we need for electrolysis ;)

I don't think hydrogen will be used for normal cars. Buses and trains now, that is a different topic. Space is not a problem there and hydrogen can be produced more or less locally at the depot using solar or wind power. You could actually combine that with a sort of small scale energy storage.

Get the power from a nearby wind mill, produce more hydrogen than you need on average, store it in a tank and have a small fuel cell there so in case of shortage you can use up hydrogen to give power to a hundred houses or so. Would be a curve smoothener for regenerative energies.   

[pecunia]

I am sure that will happen shortly after fusion reactors are giving us all the energy we need for electrolysis ;)

I don't think hydrogen will be used for normal cars. Buses and trains now, that is a different topic. Space is not a problem there and hydrogen can be produced more or less locally at the depot using solar or wind power. You could actually combine that with a sort of small scale energy storage.

Get the power from a nearby wind mill, produce more hydrogen than you need on average, store it in a tank and have a small fuel cell there so in case of shortage you can use up hydrogen to give power to a hundred houses or so. Would be a curve smoothener for regenerative energies.

It seems to me that a lot of that hydrogen would end up as Ammonia. (NH3) You see a lot of farmers hauling big tanks of Anhydrous Ammonia.

The stuff burns.  Mr.Internet says:

Ammonia has a high octane rating (about 120 versus gasoline at 86-93). So it does not need an octane enhancer and can be used in high compression engines. However, it has a relatively low energy density per gallon – about half of gasoline. The fuel mileage of ammonia is about half of gasoline's mileage.

So I'm thinking a hybrid car could be emission free by burning ammonia.  Use electricity for short trips.  Stop and get ammonia for the longer trips.

Then there's Methanol.  The internet says:

Methanol is synthesised and distilled by chemical processes using hydrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour.

Methanol contains only half the energy per gallon of gasoline but has a very high octane rating.

It has an octane rating of 99.

For the big trucks there's dimethyl ether  The internet says:

The energy efficiency and power ratings of DME and diesel engines are virtually the same. Because of its lack of carbon-to-carbon bonds, using DME as an alternative to diesel can virtually eliminate particulate emissions and potentially negate the need for costly diesel particulate filters.

DME can be produced directly from synthesis gas produced from natural gas, coal, or biomass. It can also be produced indirectly from methanol via a dehydration reaction. DME is not commercially available in the United States.

You can do lots of stuff with hydrogen other than the Hindenburg.

[Just Joe]

The wording of that makes it sound like batteries can make the cars go further than hydrogen, which in practicality is the opposite of hydrogen fuel cells. The energy density of fuel cells is much higher, which is why it is particularly beneficial for weight sensitive applications such as airplanes and long-haul trucking (in theory, as GuitarStv said, this doesn't pan out in the market apparently).

Yeah, commenting on the run made for an awkward sentence structure.

I think everyone else makes the points better than I can. We are in agreement.

[StashingAway]

As renewables penetrate the market, the efficiency argument of BEV vs Hydrogen loses some steam (although it is still valid); it doesn't really matter as much how particularly efficient a process is if the energy is all coming from renewable sources.

...except that you need 3x as many solar panels/wind turbines/geothermal plants compared to just using a BEV. Plus all the tankage, 10,000 PSI pumps, rather expensive electrolysis units, etc.

No comment on the context of my post...?

I think it would be good to look at what we agree with. Hydrogen at this point makes no sense for passenger vehicles compared to batteries. I'm 100% on board with that.

After that point- which is a big one!- I am getting into different discussion directions. Such as the density limitations of batteries and resources needed to overcome them. At some point, the benefits of the density of hydrogen outweigh the drawbacks. We may actually never see that point if trends hold, but that doesn't mean that it cannot exist in theory(solar was a mass market pipe dream for decades until it became viable, same can be true for other technologies). It's fine to work "in theory" because a long haul EV is still "in theory" as well.

Anyway, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.

[Tyson]

ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.

Strongly agree with this.  Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once.  And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing.  Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up.  Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too. 

[pecunia]

ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.

Strongly agree with this.  Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once.  And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing.  Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up.  Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.

It would take 50 years minimum to change the car centric culture to the walk centric idea that you folks expouse.  I'm not sayin' it's a bad idea, but you need something that works now for the global warming thing.  I'm still not giving up on synthetic fuels.  Hydrogen reacts with a lot of stuff and need not be stored as the high pressure gas with its inherent drawbacks.  Gasoline is C8H18.  Now if we could just find some remewable Carbon.

[nereo]

ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.

Strongly agree with this.  Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once.  And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing.  Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up.  Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.

It would take 50 years minimum to change the car centric culture to the walk centric idea that you folks expouse.  I'm not sayin' it's a bad idea, but you need something that works now for the global warming thing.  I'm still not giving up on synthetic fuels.  Hydrogen reacts with a lot of stuff and need not be stored as the high pressure gas with its inherent drawbacks.  Gasoline is C8H18.  Now if we could just find some remewable Carbon.

A couple of thoughts:

• We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns. It’s been done in a number of locations throughout the world without a pedestrian-messiah to lead the way
• Speaking of real-world examples, we know that it does NOT need to take 50 years for a place to become walking centric. Over and over again select cities both large and small have undergone systemic shifts from car-centric to one focused on pedestrians and mass-transit with the implementation of some [often hard fought] development plans. Portland OR is often cited as a leading example, but the shift was deliberate and took roughly two decades (not 50) to really take route in this very large city. San Jose learned from Portland and transformed radically in the last `15 years. Montreal (another metropolis) put a lot more resources behind it and the transformation took hold in under a decade. Much smaller towns, with their less dense cores have accomplished real change in 3-5 years by implementing a few pedestrian corridors.   
• There’s plenty of “renewable” carbon-based fuels out there, from plant-based ethanol to biodiesel. We’ve been making them at industrial scale for several decades - 10% of our domestic fuel is corn-based ethanol and has been since 1990. That doesn’t make them a great solution, economically or environmentally.

*I’m being kind

[pecunia]

ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.

Strongly agree with this.  Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once.  And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing.  Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up.  Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.

It would take 50 years minimum to change the car centric culture to the walk centric idea that you folks expouse.  I'm not sayin' it's a bad idea, but you need something that works now for the global warming thing.  I'm still not giving up on synthetic fuels.  Hydrogen reacts with a lot of stuff and need not be stored as the high pressure gas with its inherent drawbacks.  Gasoline is C8H18.  Now if we could just find some remewable Carbon.

A couple of thoughts:

• We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns. It’s been done in a number of locations throughout the world without a pedestrian-messiah to lead the way
• Speaking of real-world examples, we know that it does NOT need to take 50 years for a place to become walking centric. Over and over again select cities both large and small have undergone systemic shifts from car-centric to one focused on pedestrians and mass-transit with the implementation of some [often hard fought] development plans. Portland OR is often cited as a leading example, but the shift was deliberate and took roughly two decades (not 50) to really take route in this very large city. San Jose learned from Portland and transformed radically in the last `15 years. Montreal (another metropolis) put a lot more resources behind it and the transformation took hold in under a decade. Much smaller towns, with their less dense cores have accomplished real change in 3-5 years by implementing a few pedestrian corridors.   

[li]There’s plenty of “renewable” carbon-based fuels out there, from plant-based ethanol to biodiesel. We’ve been making them at industrial scale for several decades - 10% of our domestic fuel is corn-based ethanol and has been since 1990. That doesn’t make them a great solution, economically or environmentally. [/li][/list]

*I’m being kind

Thanks for being kind.  I'm not sure who the mega personality would be but I'd probably be oblivious to them at any rate.  I no longer recognize any of the faces on the tabloids at the grocery store checkout line.  It's possible that cities could make the change envisioned in 20 years, but I'm not sure they all want to.  Portland is more progressive than some Midwestern towns.  It wouldn't bother me to be wrong.

What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years?  I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road.  I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.

[LennStar]

Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.

[nereo]

Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.

I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.

[Paper Chaser]

What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years?  I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road.  I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.

The process for making syn fuels is typically even less efficient than the process for electrolyzing hydrogen. Any combustion will have chemical compounds released into the air. For an ICE these are typically referred to as 'smog-forming' or just 'tailpipe emissions'. Compounds like NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons, etc come out of the tailpipe of an ICE and impact local air quality and affect human health. These are present to some degree even if the fuels used are carbon neutral.

While it's not a perfect solution, at least if we use hydrogen combustion, there will be demand for fueling infrastructure and building production scale so that one day there may be hydrogen fuel cells that are both carbon neutral and have no tailpipe emissions. As noted before, these applications are most likely for vehicles that currently use diesel to get work done. Most of the hydrogen development is happening in heavy trucking, construction, agriculture, shipping, etc. But having options for other uses never hurts either.

[pecunia]

What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years?  I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road.  I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.

The process for making syn fuels is typically even less efficient than the process for electrolyzing hydrogen. Any combustion will have chemical compounds released into the air. For an ICE these are typically referred to as 'smog-forming' or just 'tailpipe emissions'. Compounds like NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons, etc come out of the tailpipe of an ICE and impact local air quality and affect human health. These are present to some degree even if the fuels used are carbon neutral.

While it's not a perfect solution, at least if we use hydrogen combustion, there will be demand for fueling infrastructure and building production scale so that one day there may be hydrogen fuel cells that are both carbon neutral and have no tailpipe emissions. As noted before, these applications are most likely for vehicles that currently use diesel to get work done. Most of the hydrogen development is happening in heavy trucking, construction, agriculture, shipping, etc. But having options for other uses never hurts either.

I speak of the millions of existing ICE.  They will not burn hydrogen. I guess it will be gasoline until the end of their lives then.  The oil company executives will be happy.

[nereo]

What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years?  I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road.  I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.

The process for making syn fuels is typically even less efficient than the process for electrolyzing hydrogen. Any combustion will have chemical compounds released into the air. For an ICE these are typically referred to as 'smog-forming' or just 'tailpipe emissions'. Compounds like NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons, etc come out of the tailpipe of an ICE and impact local air quality and affect human health. These are present to some degree even if the fuels used are carbon neutral.

While it's not a perfect solution, at least if we use hydrogen combustion, there will be demand for fueling infrastructure and building production scale so that one day there may be hydrogen fuel cells that are both carbon neutral and have no tailpipe emissions. As noted before, these applications are most likely for vehicles that currently use diesel to get work done. Most of the hydrogen development is happening in heavy trucking, construction, agriculture, shipping, etc. But having options for other uses never hurts either.

I speak of the millions of existing ICE.  They will not burn hydrogen. I guess it will be gasoline until the end of their lives then.  The oil company executives will be happy.

Most likely. The average lifespan of a passenger vehicle is just under 12 years. That creates a ~decade lag. If most new cars sold are EVs by 2030 (which now seems to be a surprisingly obtainable target) then we won’t see most cars on the road be EVss  until 2040-42. That’s the big reason why pushing the transition as soon as possible is so important.

Even still, we are likely to hit “peak gasoline” in the  NA market sometime in the next five years as the percentage of EVs combined with rising fuel efficiencies from more regulations offset the modest predicted increase in total fleet miles driven. Some believe we may have already hit peak, and every subsequent year will show a modest decline in total gallons sold.

You can convert most modern engines to run on biofuels ( and most need no modifications to run higher mixes of ethanol). Unfortunately it comes at considerable cost and reduced mpg.

[GuitarStv]

Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.

I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.

Weird.  It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists.  :P

[nereo]

Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.

I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.

Weird.  It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists.  :P

..or that the pool of potential cyclists who just don’t want to feel like they could be hit by a car on any given ride is enormous.

In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”.  It’s a chicken and egg thing.  Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.

[pecunia]

Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.

I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.

Weird.  It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists.  :P

..or that the pool of potential cyclists who just don’t want to feel like they could be hit by a car on any given ride is enormous.

In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”.  It’s a chicken and egg thing.  Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.

"If you build it they will come."  Yeh Kevin Kostner was in an old bicycle movie too  - American Flyers

[nereo]

Great movie. It has everything - motivating synthesizer music, Russians, and Costner dies in the end!

[englishteacheralex]

Great movie. It has everything - motivating synthesizer music, Russians, and Costner dies in the end!

You forgot the scene at McDonald's with the ketchup on the leg. That made quite an impression on me in my tender years!

[nereo]

Great movie. It has everything - motivating synthesizer music, Russians, and Costner dies in the end!

You forgot the scene at McDonald's with the ketchup on the leg. That made quite an impression on me in my tender years!

Bowling, dad. I want to be a bowler.

[AlanStache]

I can go along with a guy getting in to crazy good shape riding solo, I might even go along with him getting some good sprint fitness on his own.  But how the heck does one learn to move around in a peloton and the tactics needed there without actually riding a group?  But it is a legendary vhs movie. 

[Bird In Hand]

In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”.  It’s a chicken and egg thing.  Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.

Do you know of some examples of a bike-friendly infrastructure successfully being retrofitted into a less dense (semi-rural) community?  I know the economics are more challenging -- the miles of roadway per potential cyclist/pedestrian ratio is unfavorable compared to a more densely populated area.  But the number of miles driven on short trips per person is also higher since everything is more spread out.  So even relatively few people deciding to cycle ~5 miles to the nearest grocery store/library/pizza shop/etc. would have a significant effect in terms of avoided emissions (and improved health and fitness!).