rss
96

If Tesla model 3 delivers, “gas vehicles are history,” auto executives admit

Print Friendly

Cleantechnica

No doubt about it, many of us EV enthusiasts have been blown away by the Tesla Model 3 and believe it’s the car that is really going to break the gasoline auto industry’s back. But we’re just EV enthusiasts, right? Treehuggers, tech heads, climate alarmists, and people obsessed with breathing clean air — that’s who we are, right?

Okay, we can throw in gearheads now too, since electric cars absolutely crush gasmobiles in acceleration and many a gearhead is now in love with them. And I guess we can throw in anybody who loves scaring the crap out of their passengers as they skillfully effortlessly step on the pedal without notice and with full force.

But, again, this is still just a niche portion of society. Maybe we’re all just crazy enthusiasts and don’t have a clue what the mass market wants.

tesla model 3

In a new Wall Street Journal article, however, a striking quotation jumped out at CleanTechnica reader Karl Graves, who highlighted it and passed it on to me. Maybe it didn’t come from Grandma Gretchen, but it did come from the executive director of Gasoline & Automotive Services Dealers of America, Mike Fox. Here’s the beauty (which is a mix of paraphrasing from author Chris Mims and the straight words of Mike Fox):

“If Tesla can deliver on its current promises with the Model 3, says Mr. Fox, ‘gas vehicles are history—it’s horse and buggy days.’ “

Wowza. That’s one of the most “Tesla fanboy-ish” statements I’ve seen … and it’s from the executive director of Gasoline & Automotive Services Dealers of America!

Of course, auto industry execs must already know this (otherwise, they are in extreme denial), and they must be thinking more and more that Tesla is set to deliver.

tesla3charts

 

tesla3chart2

Based on certain assumptions McKinsey analysts made regarding cost-competitiveness with gas cars and plug-in hybrids, the analysts argued that a fully electric car using a $190/kWh battery would be cost-competitive with gas cars using ~$2.50/gallon gasoline.

Another wonderful quote from the Wall Street Journal article came from a more expected source, but it’s a whopper nonetheless:

“Pasquale Romano, chief executive of ChargePoint Inc., the world’s largest maker of electric-car charging stations, says he works with, and talks to, most major car companies. ‘We have seen their internal plans to just electrify everything,’ he said.”

Sims notes that initial plans are largely to create plug-in hybrids. Some researchers and industry insiders think this is a smart step in the coming decade. Others, and I would presume Mike Fox is in this boat, see the Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model Y, maybe Chevy Bolt, and other long-range yet affordable electric cars as the knockout punch that relegates plug-in hybrids to a short segment of the history books.

Plug-in hybrid buyers today certainly have reasons to buy them, but it’s hard to see a mass rollout of PHEVs as more than a delay tactic. If you want to drive electric, you want to drive electric — plenty of research has confirmed the obvious. Just listen to Akon talk about it, after telling me that he cut back from 28 fancy cars to just 4 cars — 4 fully electric Teslas — because of how much nicer they are than anything else on the market.

As affordable long-range electric cars become available, who’s going to want a plug-in hybrid with 14 miles of electric range and without the excellent acceleration of a 100% electric car?

tesla3
So, what’s the auto industry really supposed to do if Tesla does deliver the Model 3 as planned, and if this really does mean that “gas vehicles are history,” and if plug-in hybrid versions of full gasmobiles really aren’t a legitimate stepping stone a few years down the road from now?

I have an article planned on how I think auto companies can respond, theoretically. If you’ve attended a Cleantech Revolution Tour conference, you probably know what’s coming. Otherwise, feel free to offer some conjecture.

Source: Cleantechnica. Reproduced with permission.  

Share this:

  • john

    I wonder how long before this site is hit like https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/29/tesla-model-3-delivers-gas-vehicles-history-gasoline-automotive-services-dealers-america-exec-says/
    was in the last 8 hours.
    At least there were enough to refute the comments as in ” EV’s are worse for the environment than ICE”
    Plus all the other not really good points made.

    • Charles

      I’m sure there is scope just for a site that has detailed refutations to typical anti-EV comments. Every time EVs are mentioned on a mainstream motoring site, the comments are full of the same crap over and over. It would be nice just to provide a link rather than answer the same questions ad nauseum.

  • solarguy

    As it currently stands PHEV could offer 200-300km battery range and that could be extended a further 200km by using a small IC (Wankel Rotary)engine to act as a generator to charge the battery only, as Mazda has come up with. Love to see it on the market.
    Such a car would not become obsolete for 15-20yrs.

    • handbaskets’r’us

      Here’s Jeremy Clarkson’s classic ‘range anxiety’ chestnut popping up again.
      The Tesla P100D now does 600km on a full tank. -Even more if you’re in no particular hurry.
      A standard S85 gets you 500km. -600km @ 60kmh.
      Fast charge stations are now rolling out across WA, NSW and QLD, -and also the world.
      The point of the article is clear. Here they come.
      The easy bit is to convert a few petrol pumps to chargers.
      Teslas have driven from Perth to Brizzy and back.
      Watch this space.

      • john

        The funny thing is to read his silly articles published in the worlds worse media outlet raving about some pathetic ICE vehicle.
        I have a mate who is at this moment driving around this country in his Leaf.

      • solarguy

        Please don’t compare me to that buffoon. As I said to John, a car that can go to a remote location, where there is no power outlets, will get out of trouble with the range extender.

    • john

      My suggestion to you is forget the old ICE tech just use pure battery.
      Look at the average city commuter.
      More than enough range for any city dweller.
      For trips perhaps use that handy APP on your mobile that will tell you exactly where to go for a charge besides the info on your EV will tell you.

      • Daniel

        He’s a solar installer. If he’s like the team leader around here, he likely goes to remote places with no AC during the install.

        • john

          Daniel there is always one who is an exception.
          I bet there is 1 person who does some ridiculous number of miles/kilometers per year and he is not the average or in any way the representative usage of a vehicle.
          I bet you the average commute is less than 50 miles or 80 km per day.

          • Daniel

            True it doesn’t take much power to do a solar install and the guy I’m talking about only needs a 100Ah deep cycle battery to charge lithium batteries for his drill and driver set. So it really is just getting there.

          • john

            Actually you just nailed it there is techno change happening most trades people now use battery equipment they do not use long power cables to do the job.
            You have just seen techno change happening.
            So the people who made power supply drills now have to make battery supplied drills that is techno change.

          • Daniel

            Yes Lithium came first in power tools and motorcycle racing cause its three times lighter for the power. Even upmarket recreational vehicles are beginning to put them in.

          • john

            As you know it make sense better power to weight ration

          • Daniel

            Based on my calculations its equal cost over time for those sort of lithium batteries on eBay compared to lead acid, though the initial financial outlay was still too much for me. actually thats what I did with my solar system too, preferred to wait and not be an early adopter of lithium for either recreational or property.

          • The average distance for passenger vehicles in Australia is 13,800 according to ABS (2014 figurs) see link: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/9208.0/

            – that’s about 38kms per day – it’s the school run, trips to the shops or a drive to work. Some days it will be more than 38kms and some days less but that is the average. Even the current EV’s range easily coves it but with the new iteration of vehicles of 300kms plus range (GM Bolt, Long range LEAF, Tesla Model 3 and to be unveiled at this year’s Paris Motor Show in October a VW ‘Golf’ like vehicle with over 400kms range), most people will only need to plug in at home every 3 or 4 days for a charge. More at myelectriccar.com.au

      • solarguy

        John, that’s all well and good for city or inter city travel, but what I’m talking about is if some one wanted to travel to a remote area, where power outlets were as sparse as a Pauline Hanson brain cell, a tiny ICE generator would be a good thing.

        • john

          Perhaps your correct.
          However i would not have it integrated inside the vehicle a waste of money for most use.
          If you wish to take that short distance EV on a long trip plan it or carry that small gen set with you as this is not your normal use of the vehicle or the over whelming majority of people.
          I will refrain on the said brain cell capacity 🙂

          • solarguy

            Some how I knew that you would say that and that would work, but you would have to wait hours to get enough charge in some circumstances, so not practical. A factory intergrated generator, would allow you to keep on driving while charging.

          • john

            The thing is make pure BEV and if you like your preference for those who need it a vehicle that has battery and an ICE motor generator.
            In the mining industry those up to 450 tonne carrying capacity trucks are all electric drive diesel powered gen set powered units.
            The drag-lines use pure electric with cables.
            Why?
            Because of the efficiency no other reason.

            For the vast over whelming majority of usage BEV is the one to produce just like not everyone needs a 4X4 vehicle, however some do so make a range of vehicles, but the majority of usage is in short urban travel so that is the target market.

          • solarguy

            Oh yes I agree. Glad you got my point.

          • john

            Ok all good old mate.
            I do understand what you were saying and we are in agreement.

        • stucrmnx120fshwf

          Personally if I were to travel from city to city, I’d take the train, plane, ship, or bus and leave the car at home, but that’s just me, some people like the risk and thrill of white line fever, that tiredness, where you can’t have a drink. Each to their own.

    • suthnsun

      The constraint for EVs( and environment) is battery production for many years to come. I would rather have 100 million vehicles with 10kwh than 10 million with 100kwh. The outcome for GHG would be significantly better sooner. EV muscle cars are an unfortunate development. I agree with you.

  • Daniel

    Car porn yet to materialise on the street, or in garages, or have the PV up to power the EV.

  • Mark Roest

    Check my comment on Giles’ story on the networks’ ‘no new utility-scale solar, just new gas, because the sun goes down before the evening peak’ dream scenario.
    Answering this story’s author’s question, for me: the key rate determining factor will not be batteries any more, it will be the 4-5 year testing and adoption time lag that large auto companies are infamous for. So they should be carefully planning how they will cut that down to 1-2 years, once the opinion leaders in the front half of the bell curve (see Chasm Theory of Marketing) decide the BEV is proven, and the Tornado of Demand begins.
    To light a fire under them, the battery upstarts will happily provide batteries to all their auto upstart competitors. Wanna keep market share? Get with the program!
    We’re here to save life on earth from the Dark (oily) Side; suppressing their own internal climate disruption science since the 1950s!

    • john

      Mark
      Elon has started his company with the philosophy or ethos, if we like, to contribute to society by contributing to a better outcome.
      He has made his IP available to genuine EV makers rather like Mercedes Benz did in the 1950’s with the IP to do with the survival cabin concept.
      What is happening now is the start of the S Curve to do with Technological movement in the vehicle transport area.
      In the public transport area this is way past gone trains changed over years ago and buses are now going the same way it is a total no brainer for public transport on a set route.

      Explaining the S Curve.

      At first a small number of people take up the new Tech then it gathers pace on an ever increasing upward steep curve of adoption.
      We are going to be witness to a change in the type of basic transport vehicle you and i will purchase happening in our lifetime.

      • Daniel

        Wish he was more humanitarian or is it true he really needed to begin with more upmarket vehicles to cover battery prices? What if he just likes sports cars?

        • john

          Daniel read up he actually has a philosophy to help he started expensive to finance the value to society truly not the usual type of attitude of a person in business.
          It is not all for me for him.

          • Daniel

            Ok inspiring leader

  • john

    I am still astounded this site has not been flooded as https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/29/tesla-model-3-delivers-gas-vehicles-history-gasoline-automotive-services-dealers-america-exec-says/
    was this morning perhaps all the yanks are asleep.
    There was a flood of “EV are awful they do not work are bad for you and me” and just the usual total no idea level of comment one would expect from a person who thinks the Worst Media Company in the World would tell you.
    Explain WMC is pretty obvious it is Uncle Rupert’s company

    • Daniel

      Are the yanks we get doing Tesla promo on here paid? Shareholders? Environmentalists? Patriotic?

      • john

        Tesla does not do adds
        Tesla does not need to its product do not need it they sell them selves

        • Daniel

          Ok so it is truly altruism, patriotism and environmentalism… Ok. Great.

          • john

            No honestly the vehicle is just better the business plan was to sell high cost first to enable an enabling of building a cheaper car down the track so now we have the model 3 I really hope after that they work on making a $20,000 vehicle but am not holding my breath as most people want something like the model X.

          • Daniel

            Mmm I wonder who will be first with a decent mass market vehicle comparable to an ICE

          • john

            Very true Daniel
            At present there are about 15 million vehicles sold a year so a half million is not exactly very many.
            However just read up what i posted about the deposits for a model 3 which is not made until next year this just indicates there is somewhat understanding to do with technological change

          • Daniel

            I’m aware of Thomas Kuhn on the structure of scientific revolutions and think he thought the leaders in change only need reach 5 to 7% for a paradigm shift to occur. Part of my hons thesis twenty years ago

          • john

            or ok wish we could talk

          • Daniel

            There’s not much to it. After the initial leaders reach this small percentage, everybody else just predictably follow along

          • john

            They follow along because it is a better tech

          • Daniel

            They follow along because only the leaders have higher cognitive skills and can hence evaluate paradigm shifts. Most scientists only have formal-operational thinking, which means they reason from fixed and unconscious premises. Only the higher level of cognition can evaluate the premises reasoned from and hence form a new worldview or paradigm. So its not just tech that determines the shift, it is limits in cognitive ability and hence evolution of the human global population. Although that’s with science. With products, if it works and gives us what we want, who cares about understanding how it does what it does.

          • Daniel

            Here’s an example of cognitive ability, say your in a family who has always made money out of digging stuff out of the ground. Your fathers father did the same. Your in that bubble. All your mates think the same. There’s years of data backing up how you think about it, how your family does, how your peers do.

            It takes an exceptional person to re-evaluate all that data and take the sun into account.

          • Daniel

            I’m absolutely not joking and this is why writers on RenewEconomy try to intellectualise and convince the mainstream – and it is absolutely futile, and once going into the limits of cognitive faculties, it becomes very clear. This is why I consistently advocate practical approaches, to let go of convincing the mainstream and get on with the small % of the population who are already interested to put the tech in action. This is why I suggest to Giles to give up analysing the mainstream and focus instead on strategy, with helping those who are making the shift to move forward. Prototypes. Strategy. Non-attachment to convincing others. Acceptance and understanding of what is happening and those developmental processes.

          • Daniel

            Do you have a career in sales and an investment in new tech?

          • Daniel

            The prime decision facing all science and scientists, is whether to use science for its utility value or its value in understanding human awareness, its unfolding, its trajectory.

          • john

            As you are very aware then with the take up of tech there is a slow at first then the S Curve goes up steeply

          • Daniel

            Yes, I’m just interested in being a realist about identifying when its happening. I see its inevitable for those who can afford an upmarket SUV although I’m not one of them.

          • john

            That exactly is one aspect who needs a 7 seater SUV

          • Doug Cutler

            If self-driving tech arrives soon, which it may, then EV owners will be able to rent out their vehicles in an uberesque market thereby reducing the de facto operating cost of a $40K vehicle to something much more affordable.

      • john

        Daniel you are aware that the model 3 has over 400,000 prepaid deposits of interest are you not?
        Have you ever heard of any vehicle having that many people prepared to put down $1000 to order a vehicle and it is not being made until 2017?
        This absolutely fits the S Curve of technological revolution with out a doubt.

        • Daniel

          Well if those people pave the way for prices to reduce and the next season’s vehicles I’m all for it.

          • john

            I hope that they put out a say 80 KwH small vehicle in the $20k range, but not holding my breath

  • Daniel

    Car porn yet to materialise on streets or in garages or the PV to power it

  • Webber Depor

    yes yes sure ofc

  • Daniel Roy

    Not to say that electric vehicles aren’t better then ice cars. But they do contain an environmental impact On producing them, many of the rare metals that they must acuire to make the batterys and the electric motors is not great for the environment. This is why it is important to recycle such parts.

    • Daniel

      So if rare metals are recycled and the prices of production versions come down for all, then there appears a trajectory to look after the earth and human beings

    • Bob Nickson

      From the Tesla forum:

      “Tesla does not use rare earth metals in our battery or motor. Typically, rare earth metals apply to DC motors, which use magnets. One of the reasons we use an AC induction motor is it does not require magnets, which often contain the rare earth metals.”

    • john

      The batteries are being recycled both as storage but more importantly once sold back to recover the material yes that is in the business plan.

  • Daniel

    The author of this article appears excited a mainstream leader has acknowledged the inevitability of EV’s. What does this say? A need for validation. Doubt. What does doubt say? Intellectualisation. Looking externally. Yet to implement. Conviction of experience is still on the way. This leads to constant articles apparently trying to convince the mainstream that batteries and happy grids with EV are on the way. It’s called projection. Having doubt and burning time, by the subject teaching what the subject needs to know/implement.

    • Convoluted methinks and inaccurate assessment of said piece in that verb of implementing is currently being carried out by community throughout the world. Implementation being carried out by mainstream automakers such as VW, Nissan, General Motors, Ford, BYD, Kia, Honda, Volvo, Toyota (hybrids). So yes batteries and happy grids are on the way.

      • Daniel

        What are you driving?

        • driven a converted to electric Mitsubishi Mirage for 6 years and have also driven a Nissan LEAF, a Tesla Model S and BMW i3 – currently have Model 3 on order but don’t expect it in Australia till 2018/2019. These vehicles are simply superior to ‘old tech’ ICE vehicles. Mainly on Uber and public transport currently. You should got test drive one of these vehicles Daniel if you haven’t already. They are the future and they will take over sooner than we all imagine.

          • Daniel

            And what are you powering them with?

          • Solar on my roof and am on Synergy’s renewable energy service.

          • And the point you are trying to make is?

          • Daniel

            What’s synergy’s renewable energy service?

          • You pay extra money (about $3 to $4 per week extra) as a Natural Power Premium and they guarantee your grid supply will be sourced from renewable sources. Here’s the link: https://www.synergy.net.au/Your-home/Energy-plans/Green-energy-options

          • Daniel

            I’m with diamond energy. They sell solar power and think they only have solar power, so there is no extra fee for getting 100% green power. I heard about it through greenpeace. I think diamond give 8 cents/kWh feed in, though I’m not presently programming inverter to do that as would need to purchase anti-islanding equipment, which probably isn’t worth it presently..

          • good one. I want more solar and batteries to basically be power independent but have to wait a few years for battery pricing to drop a bit more.

          • Daniel

            I was once trained as a technician so I just got $2.2k of lead acid batteries (9.6kWh) as a transitional set of batteries until new generation batteries come down in price. I needed batteries now for the inverter/charger, so will be looking for drop in replacements down track..

  • John Sheehan

    EVs are great (I’ve had one for > 4 years). However has hydrogen / fuel cells in cars been taken off the table?

    See ACT investment in electrolysis in this Reneweconomy bulletin. Also Germany and Canada are two years ahead of AU.

    • john

      Toyota are going down that track an unfortunately the problem is the unstable nature of the stored product.
      Hydrogen is extremely reactive, meaning it is prone to explosive consequences if it escapes it safe containment.
      Yes i know so is fuel.
      Electricity however has other external issues depending of point of manufacture.

      • stucrmnx120fshwf

        On a small scale it makes little sense, but in bulk, liquid hydrogen 1/600th of the volume of gaseous hydrogen, is less prone to explosion, it takes the presence of a rocket engine flame, liquid oxygen, usually to detonate it. Remember that the latest rocket explosion, was kerosine and liquid oxygen, not liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, hydrogen floats up, if a liquid, it’s boiling excludes the oxygen, necessary to detonate it. So it makes sense in terms of air and sea transport, but not for cars, better to stick with lithium, which is itself not practical for aircraft, horses for courses. In aircraft, what we’re doing is subtracting the heavy metal, replacing it with the carbon from the hydrocarbon, leaving just the hydrogen as the fuel. Meaning less weight, so less wings necessary, so less drag, we haven’t yet tested hydrogen on an aircraft that’s fully composite, we base all our knowledge, on tests of a full metal jacket structure aircraft.

    • The problem for hydrogen is that the infrastructure is hugely expensive and non-existent. Electricity is ubiquitous and easily adaptable to electric vehicles. Battery technology is getting cheaper and better. The race is over and hydrogen didn’t even get out of the starting blocks. Besides – would you rather go the the local ‘hydrogen’ pump and pay the new cartel to fill up or do it from home (with your own solar panels and storage batteries)?

      • Dory Sheldan

        Physics guy here. Hydrogen problems: energy waste in making it. Energy waste in compressing, storing and transporting it. Energy waste in using it. High likelihood of slow leakage out of tanks. Most hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. Expensive hardware.

        They don’t call them fool cells for nothing.

        • stucrmnx120fshwf

          I’d have to agree, that gaseous hydrogen makes little sense in terms of transportation, particularly in terms of land transport, but liquid hydrogen, takes up 1/600th of the volume of gaseous hydrogen. Whilst this is not practical in land transport, air and sea transport make good sense, our engineering ability, with cryogenic storage continues to improve. Witness the expansion of the world’s liquid natural gas tanker fleet, with solar now half of the price of coal in Chile, the coming together of the two industries, solar and cryogenics may be inevitable.

          Just 12 hundred thousand ton liquid hydrogen storage facilities, could be enough to power India’s storage needs, although I’m not an expert, Afghanistan’s 4 trillion dollars worth of lithium is probably the best bet, for land transport though, as you say. Induction charging is likely to be the most convenient way to keep things rolling, personally I don’t know many people who travel from city to city. Usually they travel within a city, say 70 kms a day, so I’d have less worries about range anxiety than a lot of the commenters.

          • Dory Sheldan

            Yeah, but to make it liquid, you have to expend energy to compress it. That energy is likely to be lost.

          • stucrmnx120fshwf

            No, it’s not about compression, no pressure is necessary, it’s about refrigeration, which makes a lot of heat, as in heat pump, heat is what we use to drive most power production. We could use that heat to boil a fluid, ammonia, or water, which can drive a turbine, generating electricity, or to store energy, such as liquid salt. Obviously you aren’t going to achieve 100% energy recovery, but let’s say you achieve 80% energy recovery, because your doing this on an industrial scale, not as a one off, like a rocket launcher.

            Again, it’s a heat exchange process, locate the facility near the ocean, like we do with server farms, to increase surface area volume dynamics, of the cooling system. It’s best to locate such a facility near the ocean anyway, in order to get pure water, from a reverse osmosis desalination plant. Which we can then convert into hydrogen and oxygen. With cheap solar energy, we might find uses for that oxygen waste, piping it, liquefying it. Ever been in a mall, on a hot, humid day, people breathing, cars sucking up the oxygen, what if we were to use that cheap solar, to dehumidify the air and add the oxygen to it.

            Then everyone would love to go to that mall, another use of solar energy, is to extract carbon from carbon dioxide, using carbon dioxide scrubbers, or high rise farming. Think of the difference, humidity, CO2 removed, O2 added, I know I’d breathe easier.

          • Dory Sheldan

            Heat pumps work by compression.

          • stucrmnx120fshwf

            They work by both compression and latent heat of evaporation, one side, compressed is hot. The other side, evaporating is cool; in reverse cycle air conditioning, the heat is extracted from the outside. The heat pump, cools the outside air, heats the inside air. At 1/3 of the cost of standard electric heating, so that the losses, are only 33%, even on that tiny scale.

            So the heat generated, from cooling, say 100,000 tons of liquid hydrogen, at an economy of scale loss of only 20%, could be useful energy. Remember large volumes, lose or gain little temperature, hence the large liquid natural gas tankers.

          • Dory Sheldan

            I know all of this. I’m just saying that there will be some lost energy, which cannot be denied. Please see this for all of the other energy losses with hydrogen: http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

          • stucrmnx120fshwf

            Yes, for instance, the losses from induction charging, some say 30%, OK, if charging costs 1/10th as much as liquid hydrocarbons. Then that’s 13% as much, for the convenience, plus 1/10th of the price in maintainance, because there’s 1/100th of the parts, which don’t have to put up with explosive vibration. Then there’s the 4 trillion dollars, of lithium in Afghanistan, I’m just saying, in bulk, liquid hydrogen makes sense.

            OK the efficiencies aren’t perfect, but when were they ever, in the hydrocarbons economy, we renewables guys, hold ourselves to a ridiculous 100% efficiency goal. Whilst the hydrocarbons guys can get away with 35, 25% efficiency, cheap solar is coming, let’s not be dogmatic, let the inefficiencies roll, as long as solar, is cheap and clean, what’s the problem.

            I get it 25% of Australia’s deserts, can only produce a trillion tonnes, of liquid hydrogen per year. So let’s not have the roaring twenties again, because efficiencies aren’t perfect, but I don’t think efficiencies were perfect in the roaring twenties. They were much lower than the great Stagnation, in the developed world for forty years, in the developed world.

          • stucrmnx120fshwf

            Read the physorg article, it assumes, that there’s no water, reverse osmosis desalination works fine for millions of people. That there’s a transportation problem, water has been transported for thousands of years. Then there’s the transport of the energy, we’ve been bulk transporting electricity through wires for over a century.

            I repeat, I don’t think liquid hydrogen is a good power supply for vehicles. But for storage, where electrolysis efficiencies continue to improve. As well as bulk high temperature fuel cell efficiencies and bulk storage on site, near a water pipe.

            There are great losses in its use for air transport, but these are outweighed by the great advantages, of light weight and high efficiency to weight.

          • Dory Sheldan

            Please consider the losses detailed in this article: http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

            Overall: Start with 100kWh of energy.

            Grid -> Battery Electric Car (with regeneration): 69kWh to moving car
            Grid -> H2 Electrolysis -> Liquefaction -> Fuel Cell Electric Car: 19kWh to moving car
            Grid -> H2 Electrolysis -> Compression -> Fuel Cell Electric Car: 23kWh to moving car

            Those kinds of losses are pretty damning to H2 fuel.

            If you want to use North African solar, why not build a DC interconnect to Europe. DC reduces inductive losses and can double the maximum transmission distance. Do the same for the American deserts.

            Battery technology is rapidly improving. Costs are coming down consistently, and longevity and energy density are increasing. Already today’s batteries and grid technology far out-perform the best case hydrogen fuel technology in efficiency. Batteries + grid also outperform hydrogen in cost.

            I used to support hydrogen until I thought about it more carefully. I think the link I provided makes it pretty much case closed against hydrogen fuel.

          • stucrmnx120fshwf

            I totally agree, liquid hydrogen is not the fuel, for land vehicle transport. But air transport, a light fuel, 1/600 th of the volume of gaseous hydrogen, on a carbon fiber structure, let’s take the carbon out of hydrocarbons, use it for the structure. Completely skip the aluminum for the structure, use the low aerodynamic load fuselage, now at last CF. A wider body, full of LH2 fuel, it means less wing lift drag, because the fuel weighs less. Smaller wings, less drag, using high efficiency, make less weigh fuel, passenger kilometre, kilogram per ratio’s.

            Then there’s the advantages of liquid hydrogen power storage, OK, there’s too much O2 production, but couldn’t our cities use that kind of thing. I know, smog, soot better, for ye oldie cancer industrial complex.

            Worse high rise farming, sucks up the CO2, where is the cancer. Th populatione no 1 killer, going to get it’s strength.

            I get it, losing power is hard, cheap solar, will hit the carbon cancer industrial complex, right in the guts. But I have to take the long term relationship context, cheaper energy, less cancer, cheaper transport.

            Not criticizing you, it’s normal to criticize liquid hydrogen, in a small scale, it’s hopeless. But in bulk it’s magnificent, self insulates 100,000 tons, enough to keep a whole Indian state running overnight.

  • john

    I have been asked am i a person promoting EV ?
    Emphatically not in fact i used to work in the petroleum business area.
    So do I have an interest in seeing EV’s take my former business model away of course not.
    However at the same time lets look at the outcome to do with adoption of a plus 90% efficiency of utilizing available energy available, against 50% if that, on that score electric has an advantage that from an outcome cost for unit of energy point of view there is no coming back from.

  • Shirley Marquez Dulcey

    Electric cars are not yet a full replacement for gasoline or hybrid cars for a lot of people. The combination of limited range and limited charging infrastructure makes some trips impossible, or requires that the driver choose a longer route.

    Try to drive a Tesla Model S from New York to Chicago; the obvious route is Interstate 80, but the distances between charging stations are far too long. On I-80 you’re faced with the 358 mile stretch from Tannersville PA to Macedonia OH. You can complete the trip by taking I-76 (near Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) or I-90 (through upstate NY) but either route is significantly longer.

    That’s not the only poorly served stretch of I-80; going farther west you’d also be faced with the stretches from Omaha to Cheyenne (494 miles) and Cheyenne to Salt Lake City (440 miles). And some other major routes are worse, like the 974 mile stretch on I-10 from San Marcos TX (San Antonio area) to Casa Grande AZ (near Phoenix).

    • Marley

      If it’s not a problem in outback Australia it certainly can’t be a problem in the USA, https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/tesla-glamping-australian-outback/#disqus_thread

      • Shirley Marquez Dulcey

        Yes, it can.

        Depending on the standard household outlets is worse in the US than in Australia because we use 120 volt power rather than 240 volt. The same amount of current is delivered, but the lower voltage means that only half as much power is available, so the charging time is twice as long.

        It would take a long time to fully charge a Tesla’s battery from a standard US household outlet. You can get 1.8KW from a 15 amp circuit. A similar circuit in Australia would deliver 3.6KW. Going to a 20 amp circuit increases those numbers to 2.4KW and 4.8KW. A Tesla’s battery has a capacity ranging from 60KWh to 100KWh, depending on the model you have.

        Fully recharging the smallest Tesla battery would take over 33 hours on the 15 amp circuit in the US, which means that you couldn’t even drive your full 200 miles each day and recharge overnight. The comparable number in Australia would be a bit under 17 hours. This assumes the charging process is 100% efficient, which it is not, so the actual charge times will be slightly longer.

        In Australia, it would be barely possible to drive 200 miles a day and then charge overnight, which is what the people in that story did. You can’t do the same in the US unless you have access to a higher power outlet. The ones used for electric dryers – 240 volts at 30 amps – would do quite nicely; one of those will reduce the charge time by a factor of four.

        Americans doing long road trips often drive farther than the range of a Tesla each day. For that kind of driving you need the ultrafast charging that you can get from one of the Tesla Supercharger stations or similar stations run by others. Those are nonexistent in many places, including some major highway routes, and that means that a Tesla cannot be used for those trips. Even when they exist, getting to the chargers may require a substantial detour, as well as a longish stop.

        • You’re quite correct about some patchy areas in the US including New York to Chicago on the i80. However if you check out the Tesla supercharger network for completion of 2016 you will find a significant number of new stations being commissioned. Tesla also have a link on their site to suggest new stations.

          Seeing as the Supercharger network is relatively new it will not be very long before virtually the whole of the US can be traversed in a Tesla with ease. Elon Musk stated at the unveiling of the Model 3, a doubling of the network by 2017. Perhaps you can suggest one slap bang in the middle of the i80 to enable the direct route from New York to Chicago.

  • Neo Lib Yes

    What to do with gasmobiles, retrofit them to EV! Take the gastank out, put in the Lithium battery pack and fit electric motors to all 4 wheels. Once the reality hits and gasmobiles plunge in value, you can buy what you like for peanuts, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Porsche whatever.

  • Jason Van Der Velden

    Until teslas cheapest sells for $20,000 AUD or less and charges a dam sight quicker, not everyone who says no is a climate change sceptic or coal hugger.

  • trackdaze

    Early on not many see the massive change taking shape. In essence Electric vehicles need only get to the point of stealing the 2-3% growth potential for it to explode.

    There is no reason why a clean slate phev cant compete with a full electric in the short to medium term. As long as the range extender motor and auxiliary gear is lighter than equivalent extra battery they will have their place.