... and the majority of traditional aerospace execs still apparently think reusable rockets will fail.
This is why sometimes you just have to "reboot" an industry or other system and replace its institutions. IMHO the next industry that deserves a full reboot is Hollywood.
Well. They might be right if they also believe that thr dominant model will continue to be be individuals making large capital investments in rarely used assets (i.e. continuing to purchase automobiles which are used less than 5% of the time).
Recharge time, range anxiety and the like are irrelevant when you pay for the ride, not the equipment.
Four months ago I got rid of my three cars, replacing them with a flat-rate Uber pass and the occasional rental. Life has been easier and cheaper — and I don’t live in a city.
The car companies themselves are screwed unless they switch, long term, to selling rides as a service themselves. Nobody wants to be a seller of commodity product to a monopsony.
Not being sarcastic: genuinely curious. I hate driving And can’t wait for cars that really can drive themselves (even though my cars were manual mission — go figure). I also want everyone else’s car to drive itself too as that way they can drink and/or use their phones without risking my life.
And owning a big chunk of m talk like that is a waste of money.
I want to stick something in my trunk, I need to take my dog to the kennel, I want to go camping, I want to go to the middle or oregon to watch the eclipse, etc...
As for why it's dystopian. I'm now supposed to be entirely dependent on the whims of a third party private service for how I move around day to day. That sounds horrible.
Unless you don't drive much, it must still be cheaper to simply own a nice, cheap used car? You can own a great car for $10k that gets excellent gas mileage.
I can not fathom how they could experience riding/driving a modern electric car and not instantly understand that this is the future of the automobile (regardless of who owns them or what is driving them).
Because the future belongs to fuel cells. Electric cars are undoubtedly the future but batteries, at least in their current form, probably aren't. Huge banks of batteries are a stop-gap until fuel cell tech matures.
* The practical range of an electric car isn't great. There's no foreseeable story for a <5 minute charge.
* (Compared to fuel cells) Banks of batteries are dangerous in a crash.
I think the Electrek authors are wrong in their take on the situation. Distribution of the hydrogen will have razor thin margins just like gas stations. They're right that the current process for hydrogen isn't exactly efficient today, but that doesn't really sink the tech.
It might not be full fuel cell but a hybrid fuel cell battery car might end up being the best of both worlds.
Was /s intended? Because electric battery costs are falling faster than solar PV costs fell [1] [2], and there are EV charing stations anywhere there is 120/240 service.
There are 39 hydrogen fueling stations in the entire US [3]. There are 8500 Tesla Superchargers alone [4] (not to mention destination chargers, as well as non-Tesla charging stations [5]).
I'm unfamiliar with any mass production of methanol as a fuel, and I shudder to think of how much more environmental damage we'd incur attempting to scale up ethanol production (which is already a net negative if you're using corn; there's really nowhere in the US that is conducive to growing sugar beats for production [unlike in South America]).
The real differentiation is charging speed; replacing the reactants is always going to be faster than running the reaction in reverse, so you are never going to get charging a traditional battery to be as fast as refuelling a fuel cell. Even “fast” chargers are going to continue to be slow (a Tesla supercharger takes over an hour for a full charge), making battery cars good for commuting, but bad for long-distance travel.
That doesn't mean that battery cars won't have a lasting place in the market: pure commuting cars that can afford long recharge times are likely to be a major chunk of the market. But they are unlikely to be the whole of the market, ever.
> Even “fast” chargers are going to continue to be slow (a Tesla supercharger takes over an hour for a full charge)
80% in 30 minutes, which gets you to the next Supercharger. You don't want to fuel to 100% whenever possible, as its slower than pouring electrons into an empty battery.
Are you taking into account the time savings of only needing to charge on a trip a few times a year (versus a weekly/bi-weekly gas station stop)? The majority of Americans have a 40 mile round trip commute. There are users who drive 250-300+ miles/day, but they are an edge case (EDIT: but will eventually be served as battery production scales up; note the estimated 600 mile range of the Tesla Roadster 2.0)
> The practical range of an electric car isn't great. There's no foreseeable story for a <5 minute charge.
The range of electric cars already meets the weekly average car usage (most people drive ~230 miles in an average week). You don't need <5 minute charge if you only need to charge once per week.
Yes, long trips are a thing, but they are exception, not the rule. Even if they weren't an exception, ~230 miles is nearly four hours of non-stop driving. A ~30 minute break every four hours isn't going to kill anyone, and may even save lives in reduced road rage alone.
> (Compared to fuel cells) Banks of batteries are dangerous in a crash.
Compared to banks of batteries, gasoline is dangerous in a crash (by a huge margin).
Also, while the fuel cells themselves are safer, you still have a risk of hydrogen explosions carting around a hydrogen tank, or refueling at hydrogen stations. Batteries at this point aren't so much more prone to explosion when charging by comparison.
To be fair to some of those executives their red herring dream of Hydrogen Fuel Cells offer all those same benefits: a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car at this point is just an electric car with a strange "battery" that needs to be refilled like a gas tank.
That's why Toyota hasn't entirely fallen behind in the Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle, despite investing far too much in Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. The PHEV for them is a side-game that benefits directly from a lot of the money they are throwing trying to make HFCV work, simply because they can use the same electric engines, regen breaks, etc, despite many of their executives apparently still thinking that batteries are a fad waiting for Fuel Cell infrastructure.
> That's why Toyota hasn't entirely fallen behind in the Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle, despite investing far too much in Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
No, the reason is that they also invested heavily in plug-in hybrids directly, even while working on Fuel Cells, having at one point announced a plan to make their whole line plug-in hybrids (but sales arc for their existing hybrid lines, including plug-in a, fell off what they expected when they made that announcement, so it fell by the wayside.)
> The PHEV for them is a side-game that benefits directly from a lot of the money they are throwing trying to make HFCV work
Hybrids (including plugins) are more like the Polaris while they work on Poseidon than a side-game. They have parallel short-term and long-term strategies.
The point is the Mirai's engine looks far more like the electric engine of one of their hybrid's electric engines than something unique, alien, or otherwise exotic and unique to fuel cells. They couldn't afford their parallel investment strategy otherwise.
The use of the term side-game has nothing to do with how heavily they are investing in parallel strategies, but an implication in how their executives see those strategies. To them PHEVs [and hybrids in general to them] are still a "side-game" because they are making (very) good short-term profit, but the executives still seem to be playing as if they expect to lose that game in the long run, are ready to "fold" that work at any moment, and that Hydrogen is the game they expect to win.
I've driven in an electric vehicle, I had a great time. That being said, you can show why electronic will continue to struggle using an Excel spreadsheet.
Batteries have come a long way, making electronic expensive but workable, but even then 30 minute fast charge times are a bottleneck for general acceptance as is the range they can put in a sub-$30K vehicle.
And even the above might not be a hunderance if hybrids didn't exist. Problem is that electronic is competing in a marketplace with hybrids able to be "recharged" at the pump in minutes, with superior range, lower prices ($23K start for a Prius), and even the ability to be plug-in for all electric short journeys (e.g. Prius Prime).
I'd be lying if I said I didn't want a Model 3, but they're still right overall.
I think recharge times and range "anxiety" are red herrings that are going to quickly change in perception.
The Bolt, Model 3, and Nissan Leaf 2.0 are all very well on the way to setting "cheap" high-range battery electric cars.
"Edge" charging (home, office park, grocery/mall shopping) is a game changer that isn't being marketed very well to the general public (and yes, has issues for non-homeowners in the short/immediate term, but that's a separate discussion) yet. On average, a car sits more than it is driven, and all that time is a charging opportunity. The electric distribution industry doesn't need to compete with the gas supply chain here: gas needs to compete with electricity.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells replace one terribly over-complicated supply chain for an even more terribly over-complicated supply chain, and again, it can't compete in the long term with the commodity electricity infrastructure already in place.
A 30-minute stop every ~250+ miles isn't a big bottleneck. Single trips of that length or more are almost entirely in the long tail of car trips, beyond the median, mean, and mode. American car culture is uniquely steeped in some macho idea of driving halfway across an entire continent just for a weekend getaway, and that's not going to be stymied by a few extra 30 minute breaks (and might be better for it, with a few more drivers a little less road hangry or exhausted).
People who don't have electric cars still seem to have a mindset about refueling that's based on gasoline vehicles.
I have driven electric cars for 4+ years. I have charged in public ONCE -- and that was mostly for entertainment value. I didn't bother with a fast charger at home, either, I just plug it into a regular outlet.
Whenever the car is home, it's plugged in. It trickle charges overnight. So typically, it's almost always at 100% or close enough when my wife or I leave the house. Anyone with a parking spot _at home_ with access to a power outlet can do the same. Public charging stations just don't matter in this usage pattern. Home charging capabilities matter way, way more.
Now, this is for a city car -- and we've had electric cars with limited range (100 miles). But you quickly find that it's very rare to have a reason to drive more than 100 miles in a city in a day.
In cases of a super-long commute, or a driving-heavy job, things are different, but in those circumstances, gas cars or longer range electrics would win out anyway.
But the 80/20 case for most people who live in cities is the city car pattern, and for that pattern, electrics with home charging work fine.
(All the above only applies for the next 5-10 years while cars can't drive themselves. After that, none of this matters, and apparently most auto execs still don't see that either.)
I don't disagree with any of your points. But I think the technology will solve them.
Its like candlemakers got to see the worlds first lightbulb for the first time, and are going "well, the glass is really fragile. And the electricity still has to come from somewhere". That's not wrong, those are all true points. But it seems crystal clear that despite the early shortcomings this technology will lead the future.
Electric Cars seem the same way. There are edge cases they don't handle today, this is true. But electrics can already handle 80%+ of all driving needs today, and those remaining edge cases are being solved at a fairly rapid pace.
In just the last few years, we've already seen the range rise substantially and the prices drop slightly. (Compare the 2011 Leaf with ~84 mile battery had a base MSRP of $34k (inflation adjusted to $38k in 2017 dollars), to the current 2017 Bolt with ~238 mile battery at a base MSRP of $36k). And of course, used vehicles are bringing the TCO down, so much so that even middle class people can easily afford electric cars. Older used Nissan Leaf cars often sell for as low as $9k.
It seems obvious to me that this technology will continue to improve so that for those people who can't switch to electric today, they will certainly be able to in the near future.
As long as we don't find a battery technology providing as much energy density as gasoline, electric cars will only be a fad with no real economic advantage.
Regarding climate change and CO2 emissions, electric cars fail too : making the car AND producing the electricity to run it still produces way to much CO2. (most electricity still comes from coal)
If I had to make a bold prediction : in the future, individual cars (running on gas or electricity) will be rare !
The thing is batteries don’t need to have even close to the energy density of gasoline in order to be competitive. As long as cars keep being terrible at actually making use of the energy density of gasoline, batteries won’t need to keep up.
However, energy density is a legitimate complain about batteries, but it’s unreasonable to compare to gasoline.
Highly dependent on location. At the end of 2016, CA was is less than 5% usage and 0.2% production of coal powered electricity. Many other places are following as well.
Fossil fuels (coal, gas - on which CA depends for more than half its electricity production BTW) represent more than 60% of electricity produced worldwide.
Still, when you look at the picture at the 'planet' level, taking into account the big 'giants' whose consumption per capita has yet to reach our western standards - say China, India - Coal is STILL the 1st source for electricity worldwide (source : http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Gene...)
It's consumption is deacreasing worldwide, sure...Maybe because resources of coal are in decline ? It's still the 1st resource to produce electricity, with 40% of electricity produced. (electricity is only one part of the energy we consume...)
> it’s even more depressing than we could have imagined.
I don't see it as depressing that they think this.
It's depressing that they could be right.
> “more than half (54%) of global auto executives say they believe these vehicles will fail commercially due to infrastructure challenges while 60 percent say excessive recharging times will do them in.”
Sounds like valid arguments.
> According to the survey, which polled nearly 1,000 executives (including 90 in the United States), more than three-quarters of executives think that fuel cell hydrogen vehicles will be the future.
So not depressing at all. They think the alternative fuel of the future will be different, but still off of fossil fuels. That sounds fine.
37 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadThis is why sometimes you just have to "reboot" an industry or other system and replace its institutions. IMHO the next industry that deserves a full reboot is Hollywood.
Recharge time, range anxiety and the like are irrelevant when you pay for the ride, not the equipment.
Four months ago I got rid of my three cars, replacing them with a flat-rate Uber pass and the occasional rental. Life has been easier and cheaper — and I don’t live in a city.
The car companies themselves are screwed unless they switch, long term, to selling rides as a service themselves. Nobody wants to be a seller of commodity product to a monopsony.
Not being sarcastic: genuinely curious. I hate driving And can’t wait for cars that really can drive themselves (even though my cars were manual mission — go figure). I also want everyone else’s car to drive itself too as that way they can drink and/or use their phones without risking my life.
And owning a big chunk of m talk like that is a waste of money.
As for why it's dystopian. I'm now supposed to be entirely dependent on the whims of a third party private service for how I move around day to day. That sounds horrible.
Then you use your "vehicle" effectively at 100%
* The practical range of an electric car isn't great. There's no foreseeable story for a <5 minute charge.
* (Compared to fuel cells) Banks of batteries are dangerous in a crash.
I think the Electrek authors are wrong in their take on the situation. Distribution of the hydrogen will have razor thin margins just like gas stations. They're right that the current process for hydrogen isn't exactly efficient today, but that doesn't really sink the tech.
It might not be full fuel cell but a hybrid fuel cell battery car might end up being the best of both worlds.
There are 39 hydrogen fueling stations in the entire US [3]. There are 8500 Tesla Superchargers alone [4] (not to mention destination chargers, as well as non-Tesla charging stations [5]).
[1] https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/electric-vehicle-battery-cost...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2564
[3] https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html
[4] https://www.tesla.com/supercharger
[5] https://www.plugshare.com/
Just because you can almost drop those directly into the infrastructure used for gasoline. Hydrogen also sucks to store.
Electricity is the way forward.
Electricity is probably cleaner.
That doesn't mean that battery cars won't have a lasting place in the market: pure commuting cars that can afford long recharge times are likely to be a major chunk of the market. But they are unlikely to be the whole of the market, ever.
80% in 30 minutes, which gets you to the next Supercharger. You don't want to fuel to 100% whenever possible, as its slower than pouring electrons into an empty battery.
Which is still much longer than 100% fill on a fuel cell (or gas vehicle.)
Yes, that's why I said that cars optimized for different roles are likely to survive in the market rather than only one surviving.
The range of electric cars already meets the weekly average car usage (most people drive ~230 miles in an average week). You don't need <5 minute charge if you only need to charge once per week.
Yes, long trips are a thing, but they are exception, not the rule. Even if they weren't an exception, ~230 miles is nearly four hours of non-stop driving. A ~30 minute break every four hours isn't going to kill anyone, and may even save lives in reduced road rage alone.
> (Compared to fuel cells) Banks of batteries are dangerous in a crash.
Compared to banks of batteries, gasoline is dangerous in a crash (by a huge margin).
Also, while the fuel cells themselves are safer, you still have a risk of hydrogen explosions carting around a hydrogen tank, or refueling at hydrogen stations. Batteries at this point aren't so much more prone to explosion when charging by comparison.
That's why Toyota hasn't entirely fallen behind in the Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle, despite investing far too much in Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. The PHEV for them is a side-game that benefits directly from a lot of the money they are throwing trying to make HFCV work, simply because they can use the same electric engines, regen breaks, etc, despite many of their executives apparently still thinking that batteries are a fad waiting for Fuel Cell infrastructure.
No, the reason is that they also invested heavily in plug-in hybrids directly, even while working on Fuel Cells, having at one point announced a plan to make their whole line plug-in hybrids (but sales arc for their existing hybrid lines, including plug-in a, fell off what they expected when they made that announcement, so it fell by the wayside.)
> The PHEV for them is a side-game that benefits directly from a lot of the money they are throwing trying to make HFCV work
Hybrids (including plugins) are more like the Polaris while they work on Poseidon than a side-game. They have parallel short-term and long-term strategies.
The use of the term side-game has nothing to do with how heavily they are investing in parallel strategies, but an implication in how their executives see those strategies. To them PHEVs [and hybrids in general to them] are still a "side-game" because they are making (very) good short-term profit, but the executives still seem to be playing as if they expect to lose that game in the long run, are ready to "fold" that work at any moment, and that Hydrogen is the game they expect to win.
Batteries have come a long way, making electronic expensive but workable, but even then 30 minute fast charge times are a bottleneck for general acceptance as is the range they can put in a sub-$30K vehicle.
And even the above might not be a hunderance if hybrids didn't exist. Problem is that electronic is competing in a marketplace with hybrids able to be "recharged" at the pump in minutes, with superior range, lower prices ($23K start for a Prius), and even the ability to be plug-in for all electric short journeys (e.g. Prius Prime).
I'd be lying if I said I didn't want a Model 3, but they're still right overall.
The Bolt, Model 3, and Nissan Leaf 2.0 are all very well on the way to setting "cheap" high-range battery electric cars.
"Edge" charging (home, office park, grocery/mall shopping) is a game changer that isn't being marketed very well to the general public (and yes, has issues for non-homeowners in the short/immediate term, but that's a separate discussion) yet. On average, a car sits more than it is driven, and all that time is a charging opportunity. The electric distribution industry doesn't need to compete with the gas supply chain here: gas needs to compete with electricity.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells replace one terribly over-complicated supply chain for an even more terribly over-complicated supply chain, and again, it can't compete in the long term with the commodity electricity infrastructure already in place.
A 30-minute stop every ~250+ miles isn't a big bottleneck. Single trips of that length or more are almost entirely in the long tail of car trips, beyond the median, mean, and mode. American car culture is uniquely steeped in some macho idea of driving halfway across an entire continent just for a weekend getaway, and that's not going to be stymied by a few extra 30 minute breaks (and might be better for it, with a few more drivers a little less road hangry or exhausted).
I have driven electric cars for 4+ years. I have charged in public ONCE -- and that was mostly for entertainment value. I didn't bother with a fast charger at home, either, I just plug it into a regular outlet.
Whenever the car is home, it's plugged in. It trickle charges overnight. So typically, it's almost always at 100% or close enough when my wife or I leave the house. Anyone with a parking spot _at home_ with access to a power outlet can do the same. Public charging stations just don't matter in this usage pattern. Home charging capabilities matter way, way more.
Now, this is for a city car -- and we've had electric cars with limited range (100 miles). But you quickly find that it's very rare to have a reason to drive more than 100 miles in a city in a day.
In cases of a super-long commute, or a driving-heavy job, things are different, but in those circumstances, gas cars or longer range electrics would win out anyway.
But the 80/20 case for most people who live in cities is the city car pattern, and for that pattern, electrics with home charging work fine.
(All the above only applies for the next 5-10 years while cars can't drive themselves. After that, none of this matters, and apparently most auto execs still don't see that either.)
Its like candlemakers got to see the worlds first lightbulb for the first time, and are going "well, the glass is really fragile. And the electricity still has to come from somewhere". That's not wrong, those are all true points. But it seems crystal clear that despite the early shortcomings this technology will lead the future.
Electric Cars seem the same way. There are edge cases they don't handle today, this is true. But electrics can already handle 80%+ of all driving needs today, and those remaining edge cases are being solved at a fairly rapid pace.
In just the last few years, we've already seen the range rise substantially and the prices drop slightly. (Compare the 2011 Leaf with ~84 mile battery had a base MSRP of $34k (inflation adjusted to $38k in 2017 dollars), to the current 2017 Bolt with ~238 mile battery at a base MSRP of $36k). And of course, used vehicles are bringing the TCO down, so much so that even middle class people can easily afford electric cars. Older used Nissan Leaf cars often sell for as low as $9k.
It seems obvious to me that this technology will continue to improve so that for those people who can't switch to electric today, they will certainly be able to in the near future.
Regarding climate change and CO2 emissions, electric cars fail too : making the car AND producing the electricity to run it still produces way to much CO2. (most electricity still comes from coal)
If I had to make a bold prediction : in the future, individual cars (running on gas or electricity) will be rare !
However, energy density is a legitimate complain about batteries, but it’s unreasonable to compare to gasoline.
Highly dependent on location. At the end of 2016, CA was is less than 5% usage and 0.2% production of coal powered electricity. Many other places are following as well.
Fossil fuels (coal, gas - on which CA depends for more than half its electricity production BTW) represent more than 60% of electricity produced worldwide.
This is not true anywhere in the US, and use of coal is in decline everywhere.
Still, when you look at the picture at the 'planet' level, taking into account the big 'giants' whose consumption per capita has yet to reach our western standards - say China, India - Coal is STILL the 1st source for electricity worldwide (source : http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Gene...)
It's consumption is deacreasing worldwide, sure...Maybe because resources of coal are in decline ? It's still the 1st resource to produce electricity, with 40% of electricity produced. (electricity is only one part of the energy we consume...)
I don't see it as depressing that they think this.
It's depressing that they could be right.
> “more than half (54%) of global auto executives say they believe these vehicles will fail commercially due to infrastructure challenges while 60 percent say excessive recharging times will do them in.”
Sounds like valid arguments.
> According to the survey, which polled nearly 1,000 executives (including 90 in the United States), more than three-quarters of executives think that fuel cell hydrogen vehicles will be the future.
So not depressing at all. They think the alternative fuel of the future will be different, but still off of fossil fuels. That sounds fine.
This "article" is terrible.