That is simply wrong. The "cost of a large battery pack that can provide > 300 miles range per charge" depends on the chemistry, of course, but excluding the titanates, you're looking at $0.35 to $0.50 per watt hour. A Tesla or Volt-like vehicle gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $21k to $30k. Fuel cell stacks are about $10/W. A 30kW fuel cell stack -- which *also* needs a large battery pack for current buffering -- costs $300k An order of magnitude more.
As for the safety of *any* hydrogen system, check out NASA's handling guidelines. People who make money on hydrogen systems can say whatever they want, but the facts about hydrogen are the facts.
1) Laptop batteries != EV batteries. Except in the case of Tesla; they're kind of doing their own thing, different from pretty much everyone else. 2) Despite the common notion, batteries are just one aspect of EV technology that's undergone major advancement. Just to pick a random example: IGBTs. 3) Fuel cell vehicles, while technically "electric", are traditionally abbreviated FCV.
Little known fact about liquid hydrogen: as per a NASA hydrogen safety guideline document I was reading a while back, air accidentally ingested with the hydrogen during the liquefaction process makes a solid explosive with the explosive power of TNT.
And with a smart grid, which they've already started investing in via the stimulus bill, EVs can adjust their charging rate based on the needs of the grid. Or, in the case of V2G, even output power to it.
($6 is, of course, over the top; the size of the subsidies is pretty tiny compared to the size of the industry. But I would like to see prices up in the $3-$4/gal range. Preferably via taxes rather than supply/demand or OPEC limits, so that the money could be used to offset the pain caused by those prices via either additional services or tax cuts.
Not more efficient. 1/4 to 1/2 as efficient, between the electrolysis and the fuel cell itself. Li-ion batteries are nearly lossless, chargers are usually around 92-93% efficient, and the grid is 92.8% efficient.
Hydrogen fuel cells were researched, despite its huge cost, durability, and efficiency problems, because at the time it did so much better than EVs in terms of range and charge time. But the fill time on FCVs has been going *up* as their range has increased, and the range hasn't gone up nearly as much as EVs have -- the best FCVs being passed out to limited numbers of people on a rental basis (because they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each) have worse range than the Tesla Model S or the T-Zero.
I'm pro biofuels, but how are they going to know what technology will pan out?
You never know. But wise investment involves making your best judgment based on what is known, and what is known is that fuel cell stacks cost an order of magnitude more than even a large li-ion battery pack, have no better range or fuelling time than EVs (the only exception to the latter being if you have the fuel super-compressed at the stations, which is both dangerous and makes the stations even more expensive), have 1/3rd the fuel-cycle efficiency, have half the lifespan in the fuel cell stack, have many more moving parts than an EV, fundamentally require new infrastructure for all modes of operation (versus EVs which only need new infrastructure for long trips), and in general involve having to deal with hydrogen -- a chemical that leaks through almost anything, weakens metals, enters pipes and follows them to their destination, destroys ozone, pools under overhangs, has an incredibly low ignition energy, burns in almost any fuel-air mixture, readily undergoes deflagration to detonation transitions, and is a general PITA to store and transport.
Hydrogen fuel cells have failed to advance sufficiently to become marketable, affordable, reliable products that are decisively better for the environment, despite getting the lion's share of research funding in the past decade. EVs are far closer to this, esp. with the modern fast-charging, long-range, nontoxic li-ion variants, and hence the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction.
Indeed, we do use a feather teather, or at times a flight suit. He's potty trained at home, but when he gets nervous, such as around strangers or in an unfamiliar environment, he doesn't always hold it. Much to our surprise, he seems to prefer the flight suit to the feather tether. I think it's the fact that it doesn't go around his neck that makes him less likely to chew at it.
I'm kind of tired with the debate as well, but I'm glad we had it -- exchange of ideas among those of differing viewpoints is always important.:)
An African grey parrot, we're probably going to be adopting another one. He's between 15 and 17 in age.
We have a 3-year-old yellow-headed amazon. We take him out to local parks about weekly -- not for shows, but just to meet the local children so he stays well-socialized. He's a real sweetie.:)
First up you're wrong regarding it takes more to refine diesel, par the DOE
First off, your link doesn't state that. Secondly, that's not what I stated; I stated that diesel *contains* more energy (and more mass of petroleum) per gallon, not that it uses more energy to refine. Third, diesel *did* used to take less energy to refine, but it's approximately the same today with modern desulfurization requirements. Oh, and my source on how much energy it currently takes to refine is from my father, who is the CEO of one of the largest refiners in the US.
Based on this you can't get a single product from a barrel,
That's not how it works. They're talking about the average. First off, there's no single type of crude oil. Crude comes in varying average molecular weights, from light to ultra-heavy (and even bitumen), varying levels of sulphur (sweet to sour), etc. The different average molecular weights have differing natural "cuts" between gasoline, fuel oil (varying grades), and so forth. In addition to the average molecular weight requirements (diesel/fuel oil being heavier than gasoline), you also need approximately the right mix of different types of hydrocarbons -- alkanes, cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc. Again, your crude can have a different natural cut of these, and almost never does it come out just right to be used directly as fuel just by separating by weight.
That's where refining comes in. Refining is not only the process of the separation of the crude, but changing certain chemicals from one form to another. My father got his start, for example, managing cat crackers, which use hydrogen and catalyst beds to break down long chain hydrocarbons into shorter chain hydrocarbons.
Secondly, the Biodiesel Board has something to say regarding emissions with just a 20% blend of renewable fuel in the mainstream
And I'm sure the Tobacco Lobby has something to say regarding the health effects of tobacco smoking. They are correct, mind you, that biodiesel is usually cleaner than regular diesel when burned properly. But it still doesn't come close to gasoline. For example, point to a single diesel or biodiesel SULEV. They don't exist, and it takes some really convoluted methods (like traps and urea injection) to even get down to LEV status.
we can easily offset that by using any number of renewable crops -- several of which have no human consumption traits
There simply is not enough land. Do the math. We're already farming too darn much of this country, a large chunk of it unsustainably in terms of water, and what's being proposed is asking for somewhere between another Florida's worth of irrigated land to about five Texases worth of irrigated land.
I don't really care how you slice it, when you look at a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle that gets 28/32 and the 1.9L Diesel Beetle that gets 44/51
*Sigh*. I really have to start from the beginning here, don't I?
1) First off, where are your numbers from? From fueleconomy.gov, we don't see a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle in any recent model -- only 2.5L. The most recent year that a diesel VW beetle was certified by the EPA was 2006. The gasolines ranges from 20/28/23 to 20/29/23. The diesels ranged from 30/38/33 to 31/40/34. *However*, the gasoline beetles ranked from 6 to 9 on their pollution scores, while the diesels both ranked *1*. That's on a scale of 0 being the worst and 10 being the best. Breathe in deep from *that* tailpipe!
2) A gallon of diesel contains about 12% more petroleum, and burning it emits about 12% more CO2. The diesel beetles wer
We bought a diesel jeep (SUV) to haul around our bird cage 3-4 times a year to various events and shows
Out of curiosity, what kind of bird?
Perhaps you should spend $400 on Craigslist and get a beat up old truck, something old enough to not need inspection and put cheap tags on it, and save yourself the $50 rental fee?
One, that'd have to be a really beat up old truck. Two, no, the costs of keeping and maintaining it wouldn't justify once or twice a year usage.
Your analogy wasn't altered. I work with people who really would make use of a printer like that *at home* because these folks are workaholics who can't read 300pg PDFs on the computer screen and have to print them out.
300 pages != 50 pounds
It's not unreasonable to ask a vehicle to give you a 600 to 700 mile range
It is unreasonable to turn down a vehicle because it doesn't have a 600-700 mile range when it gives you some massive cost savings and environment savings potential.
You said it yourself the idea is to go to the fill up station less.
*Around town*. Proportionally few people in this country do most of their driving on long trips. It's done around home. And with an EV, you *never* have to go to a station to fill up when doing your regular, around-town stuff. The point of those big gas tanks is to get around an inconvenience in day-to-day life that EVs don't have to deal with at all.
If you drive 10,000mi/year and get 600mi out of 14 gallons you're looking at fueling up a total of 16 times for the year. With the EV you have to plug it in every 200mi or so, that works out to 50 charges.
Do you really not see the difference between plugging in in your garage/disconnecting when you leave versus driving out of your way to a gas station, pulling up (perhaps waiting, if at a busy time), getting out (in whatever weather you're having to deal with -- nasty heat/humidity, blizzard, etc), unscrewing your gas cap, putting the pump in, selecting your fuel type, fuelling it, taking the pump back out, putting the gas cap on, messing with your wallet to get out a credit card, paying, leaving, and driving back to where you were going? EVs let you avoid that *inconvenience* (I've timed it before -- it generally takes 10-15 minutes out of my day every time. Plugging/unplugging an electronic device, including fetching the cord, etc, is generally under one minute). The point of putting a huge gas tank on a gas car is to try to reduce the frequency that you have to deal with that inconvenience which EVs never have to deal with around town (i.e., the lion's share of driving).
Diesel, however, is more rapidly deployable in the short term with near immediate payoff in terms of reducing emissions *and* reducing the number of imported gallons of oil.
Diesel *increases* most emissions (just not CO2). Yes, even modern diesels. Yes, there exist diesel vehicles that are cleaner than gasoline vehicles that exist, but *on average*, gasoline cars are still way cleaner than diesel cars. Also, part of the "number of gallons" aspect is illusory, as diesel is a 15% denser fuel than gasoline (so you're importing more oil per gallon)
EVs will face the issue of is it bad power or clean power
I think you already know very well that EVs are cleaner than gasoline cars by a good margin even on our current grid. If not, I have plenty of peer-reviewed papers for you to read. Including one from the DOE conducted at PNL. The general conclusion is that *on our current grid* for the same vehicle on each drivetrain, EVs increase PM, have the same SOx emissions, slightly reduce NOx, nearly eliminate VOCs, nearly eliminate CO, and cut CO2 by a third. However, even that's misleading, because what pollutants are emitted are emitted at altitude and more displaced from population centers, so the health consequences of those emissions are notably lower. *And* the grid is rapidly getting cleaner (42% of new power added last year was wind, and most of the rest was natural gas), while oil is getting dirtier (more syncrude -- bitumen, coal liquefaction, deepwater, etc). It's no contest.
Sooo... then why would you need 700 miles range? I mean, if you could fast charge or battery swap at those times, all the range you need would be ~140 miles range. And EVs are already up to 300 miles range.
My question to you is, why do you think this is weird?
I don't think it's "weird". I just think it's a really trivial thing to rule out electric over. That's like saying I wouldn't get a heart transplant if my hospital meals don't include jello. That sort of range is such an unimportant ability that's so seldom relevant, if ever.
Let me put it another way. A couple months back, I had to pick up a new furnace in Missouri. I don't have a vehicle that can haul a furnace, so I rented a cargo van. I have to rent a cargo van or pickup once or twice a year for things like that. Should I buy a cargo van? Make it my daily driver? Of course not; that'd be idiotic for something whose capabilities I need so rarely. Yet that's exactly what you're saying in relation to EVs. Only worse; you *never* have to go 700 miles without a single stop, it's not considered safe to do so, and it provides such a tiny benefit in terms of drive time it's virtually pointless. Yet you're willing to completely write off environmentally-friendly low-maintenance transportation that costs a third as much per mile over something it. I just can't comprehend that notion.
As for the 50 pounds of paper mark, if you worked with the folks I did -- that would be something to talk about.
I said at home. You're trying to alter my analogy;)
But again, I don't get why you'd need that kind of *range* between stops. Do you honest-to-god drive 700 miles nonstop -- no stretch breaks, no bathroom breaks, no food breaks, etc? The standard safety recommendations are *at least* 10 minutes break for every 2 hours driving.
In general, long "range" for gasoline cars is simply to get around the inconvenience of having to go to gas stations in your day-to-day life. Which isn't an issue for most EVs in most people's lifestyles -- plug in when you get home, and whenever you get back to your car, you've got a full charge. You never even need to think about it.
If anything I'm more worldly in my expectations of consumer products.
It's not a question of what's capable of what, but why on Earth you'd need that sort of capability unless you're an arctic explorer or something. Do you not get out to stretch? Do you not go to the bathroom? Do you not eat? It's like boasting that your home printer can hold 50 pounds of paper in its tray.
Not solar cells. Solar thermal. They're flat mirrors and steel pipes -- no more complex or expensive than building an equivalent-sized hydroponic system. Only this system powers an order of magnitude or two more vehicles.
Eh, I'll go to see it simply because they have the Aptera 2e make a brief cameo in the background about half an hour into the movie (reportedly, it's with Kirk and McCoy on the steps at the Academy with the Golden Gate in the background).
First off, you're ignoring the fact that we're a net agricultural exporter in your comparison to existing plantings. Secondly, where do you expect us to come up another Florida's area's worth of cultivable land? We're already farming so much that the Colorado no longer reaches the ocean for most of the year, the west and south are getting drier, and the Ogallala is being drained at a rate faster than the (historical) flow of the Colorado river (at this current rate, it'd be empty in 25 years). Third, that 1000 gallon per acre figure for switchgrass is based on speculative numbers.
Lastly, you write:
with a complex "compact linear fresnel reflector solar thermal generating station"
The name may sound fancy, but the CLFR is one of the simplest solar thermal designs. The reflectors are big, long, flat mirrors rotated as a single unit -- no complex curved shapes, no millions of individual multi-axis actuators, etc. The receivers are just elevated black steel pipes -- not glass vacuum sealed tubes like in many designs. And the power from it is nearly cost-competitive with coal *without* cap and trade.
But hey, you just saw it fit to judge it based on the fancy-sounding name.
Well, the cause and effect are actually opposite of how it may appear, but... I am the president of a company developing software for alt-fuel vehicles, so it's kind of my business to keep up on these sort of things.:) However, I ended up starting that company because of an interest in (and lot of study of) EVs rather than the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
That is simply wrong. The "cost of a large battery pack that can provide > 300 miles range per charge" depends on the chemistry, of course, but excluding the titanates, you're looking at $0.35 to $0.50 per watt hour. A Tesla or Volt-like vehicle gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $21k to $30k. Fuel cell stacks are about $10/W. A 30kW fuel cell stack -- which *also* needs a large battery pack for current buffering -- costs $300k An order of magnitude more.
As for the safety of *any* hydrogen system, check out NASA's handling guidelines. People who make money on hydrogen systems can say whatever
they want, but the facts about hydrogen are the facts.
1) Laptop batteries != EV batteries. Except in the case of Tesla; they're kind of doing their own thing, different from pretty much everyone else.
2) Despite the common notion, batteries are just one aspect of EV technology that's undergone major advancement. Just to pick a random example: IGBTs.
3) Fuel cell vehicles, while technically "electric", are traditionally abbreviated FCV.
Little known fact about liquid hydrogen: as per a NASA hydrogen safety guideline document I was reading a while back, air accidentally ingested with the hydrogen during the liquefaction process makes a solid explosive with the explosive power of TNT.
And with a smart grid, which they've already started investing in via the stimulus bill, EVs can adjust their charging rate based on the needs of the grid. Or, in the case of V2G, even output power to it.
Motor efficiency applies to both BEVs and FCVs, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Run, forest, run!
I can hardly wait for $6/gallon gas this summer!
Me too. Only I'm not being sarcastic.
($6 is, of course, over the top; the size of the subsidies is pretty tiny compared to the size of the industry. But I would like to see prices up in the $3-$4/gal range. Preferably via taxes rather than supply/demand or OPEC limits, so that the money could be used to offset the pain caused by those prices via either additional services or tax cuts.
Small scale electrolysis is even less efficient and more expensive than large scale, and takes bloody forever to boot.
Not more efficient. 1/4 to 1/2 as efficient, between the electrolysis and the fuel cell itself. Li-ion batteries are nearly lossless, chargers are usually around 92-93% efficient, and the grid is 92.8% efficient.
Hydrogen fuel cells were researched, despite its huge cost, durability, and efficiency problems, because at the time it did so much better than EVs in terms of range and charge time. But the fill time on FCVs has been going *up* as their range has increased, and the range hasn't gone up nearly as much as EVs have -- the best FCVs being passed out to limited numbers of people on a rental basis (because they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each) have worse range than the Tesla Model S or the T-Zero.
It's had the lion's share of research funding for the past decade, and despite that, has been lapped on pretty much every front by EVs.
It's electric vehicles' turn.
I'm pro biofuels, but how are they going to know what technology will pan out?
You never know. But wise investment involves making your best judgment based on what is known, and what is known is that fuel cell stacks cost an order of magnitude more than even a large li-ion battery pack, have no better range or fuelling time than EVs (the only exception to the latter being if you have the fuel super-compressed at the stations, which is both dangerous and makes the stations even more expensive), have 1/3rd the fuel-cycle efficiency, have half the lifespan in the fuel cell stack, have many more moving parts than an EV, fundamentally require new infrastructure for all modes of operation (versus EVs which only need new infrastructure for long trips), and in general involve having to deal with hydrogen -- a chemical that leaks through almost anything, weakens metals, enters pipes and follows them to their destination, destroys ozone, pools under overhangs, has an incredibly low ignition energy, burns in almost any fuel-air mixture, readily undergoes deflagration to detonation transitions, and is a general PITA to store and transport.
Hydrogen fuel cells have failed to advance sufficiently to become marketable, affordable, reliable products that are decisively better for the environment, despite getting the lion's share of research funding in the past decade. EVs are far closer to this, esp. with the modern fast-charging, long-range, nontoxic li-ion variants, and hence the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction.
% If I had a ( for every dollar wasted on fuel cells, what would I have?
Indeed, we do use a feather teather, or at times a flight suit. He's potty trained at home, but when he gets nervous, such as around strangers or in an unfamiliar environment, he doesn't always hold it. Much to our surprise, he seems to prefer the flight suit to the feather tether. I think it's the fact that it doesn't go around his neck that makes him less likely to chew at it.
I'm kind of tired with the debate as well, but I'm glad we had it -- exchange of ideas among those of differing viewpoints is always important. :)
An African grey parrot, we're probably going to be adopting another one. He's between 15 and 17 in age.
We have a 3-year-old yellow-headed amazon. We take him out to local parks about weekly -- not for shows, but just to meet the local children so he stays well-socialized. He's a real sweetie. :)
First up you're wrong regarding it takes more to refine diesel, par the DOE
First off, your link doesn't state that. Secondly, that's not what I stated; I stated that diesel *contains* more energy (and more mass of petroleum) per gallon, not that it uses more energy to refine. Third, diesel *did* used to take less energy to refine, but it's approximately the same today with modern desulfurization requirements. Oh, and my source on how much energy it currently takes to refine is from my father, who is the CEO of one of the largest refiners in the US.
Based on this you can't get a single product from a barrel,
That's not how it works. They're talking about the average. First off, there's no single type of crude oil. Crude comes in varying average molecular weights, from light to ultra-heavy (and even bitumen), varying levels of sulphur (sweet to sour), etc. The different average molecular weights have differing natural "cuts" between gasoline, fuel oil (varying grades), and so forth. In addition to the average molecular weight requirements (diesel/fuel oil being heavier than gasoline), you also need approximately the right mix of different types of hydrocarbons -- alkanes, cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc. Again, your crude can have a different natural cut of these, and almost never does it come out just right to be used directly as fuel just by separating by weight.
That's where refining comes in. Refining is not only the process of the separation of the crude, but changing certain chemicals from one form to another. My father got his start, for example, managing cat crackers, which use hydrogen and catalyst beds to break down long chain hydrocarbons into shorter chain hydrocarbons.
Secondly, the Biodiesel Board has something to say regarding emissions with just a 20% blend of renewable fuel in the mainstream
And I'm sure the Tobacco Lobby has something to say regarding the health effects of tobacco smoking. They are correct, mind you, that biodiesel is usually cleaner than regular diesel when burned properly. But it still doesn't come close to gasoline. For example, point to a single diesel or biodiesel SULEV. They don't exist, and it takes some really convoluted methods (like traps and urea injection) to even get down to LEV status.
we can easily offset that by using any number of renewable crops -- several of which have no human consumption traits
There simply is not enough land. Do the math. We're already farming too darn much of this country, a large chunk of it unsustainably in terms of water, and what's being proposed is asking for somewhere between another Florida's worth of irrigated land to about five Texases worth of irrigated land.
I don't really care how you slice it, when you look at a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle that gets 28/32 and the 1.9L Diesel Beetle that gets 44/51
*Sigh*. I really have to start from the beginning here, don't I?
1) First off, where are your numbers from? From fueleconomy.gov, we don't see a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle in any recent model -- only 2.5L. The most recent year that a diesel VW beetle was certified by the EPA was 2006. The gasolines ranges from 20/28/23 to 20/29/23. The diesels ranged from 30/38/33 to 31/40/34. *However*, the gasoline beetles ranked from 6 to 9 on their pollution scores, while the diesels both ranked *1*. That's on a scale of 0 being the worst and 10 being the best. Breathe in deep from *that* tailpipe!
2) A gallon of diesel contains about 12% more petroleum, and burning it emits about 12% more CO2. The diesel beetles wer
We bought a diesel jeep (SUV) to haul around our bird cage 3-4 times a year to various events and shows
Out of curiosity, what kind of bird?
Perhaps you should spend $400 on Craigslist and get a beat up old truck, something old enough to not need inspection and put cheap tags on it, and save yourself the $50 rental fee?
One, that'd have to be a really beat up old truck. Two, no, the costs of keeping and maintaining it wouldn't justify once or twice a year usage.
Your analogy wasn't altered. I work with people who really would make use of a printer like that *at home* because these folks are workaholics who can't read 300pg PDFs on the computer screen and have to print them out.
300 pages != 50 pounds
It's not unreasonable to ask a vehicle to give you a 600 to 700 mile range
It is unreasonable to turn down a vehicle because it doesn't have a 600-700 mile range when it gives you some massive cost savings and environment savings potential.
You said it yourself the idea is to go to the fill up station less.
*Around town*. Proportionally few people in this country do most of their driving on long trips. It's done around home. And with an EV, you *never* have to go to a station to fill up when doing your regular, around-town stuff. The point of those big gas tanks is to get around an inconvenience in day-to-day life that EVs don't have to deal with at all.
If you drive 10,000mi/year and get 600mi out of 14 gallons you're looking at fueling up a total of 16 times for the year. With the EV you have to plug it in every 200mi or so, that works out to 50 charges.
Do you really not see the difference between plugging in in your garage/disconnecting when you leave versus driving out of your way to a gas station, pulling up (perhaps waiting, if at a busy time), getting out (in whatever weather you're having to deal with -- nasty heat/humidity, blizzard, etc), unscrewing your gas cap, putting the pump in, selecting your fuel type, fuelling it, taking the pump back out, putting the gas cap on, messing with your wallet to get out a credit card, paying, leaving, and driving back to where you were going? EVs let you avoid that *inconvenience* (I've timed it before -- it generally takes 10-15 minutes out of my day every time. Plugging/unplugging an electronic device, including fetching the cord, etc, is generally under one minute). The point of putting a huge gas tank on a gas car is to try to reduce the frequency that you have to deal with that inconvenience which EVs never have to deal with around town (i.e., the lion's share of driving).
Diesel, however, is more rapidly deployable in the short term with near immediate payoff in terms of reducing emissions *and* reducing the number of imported gallons of oil.
Diesel *increases* most emissions (just not CO2). Yes, even modern diesels. Yes, there exist diesel vehicles that are cleaner than gasoline vehicles that exist, but *on average*, gasoline cars are still way cleaner than diesel cars. Also, part of the "number of gallons" aspect is illusory, as diesel is a 15% denser fuel than gasoline (so you're importing more oil per gallon)
EVs will face the issue of is it bad power or clean power
I think you already know very well that EVs are cleaner than gasoline cars by a good margin even on our current grid. If not, I have plenty of peer-reviewed papers for you to read. Including one from the DOE conducted at PNL. The general conclusion is that *on our current grid* for the same vehicle on each drivetrain, EVs increase PM, have the same SOx emissions, slightly reduce NOx, nearly eliminate VOCs, nearly eliminate CO, and cut CO2 by a third. However, even that's misleading, because what pollutants are emitted are emitted at altitude and more displaced from population centers, so the health consequences of those emissions are notably lower. *And* the grid is rapidly getting cleaner (42% of new power added last year was wind, and most of the rest was natural gas), while oil is getting dirtier (more syncrude -- bitumen, coal liquefaction, deepwater, etc). It's no contest.
When we went to iowa we stopped every 2 hours
Sooo... then why would you need 700 miles range? I mean, if you could fast charge or battery swap at those times, all the range you need would be ~140 miles range. And EVs are already up to 300 miles range.
My question to you is, why do you think this is weird?
I don't think it's "weird". I just think it's a really trivial thing to rule out electric over. That's like saying I wouldn't get a heart transplant if my hospital meals don't include jello. That sort of range is such an unimportant ability that's so seldom relevant, if ever.
Let me put it another way. A couple months back, I had to pick up a new furnace in Missouri. I don't have a vehicle that can haul a furnace, so I rented a cargo van. I have to rent a cargo van or pickup once or twice a year for things like that. Should I buy a cargo van? Make it my daily driver? Of course not; that'd be idiotic for something whose capabilities I need so rarely. Yet that's exactly what you're saying in relation to EVs. Only worse; you *never* have to go 700 miles without a single stop, it's not considered safe to do so, and it provides such a tiny benefit in terms of drive time it's virtually pointless. Yet you're willing to completely write off environmentally-friendly low-maintenance transportation that costs a third as much per mile over something it. I just can't comprehend that notion.
As for the 50 pounds of paper mark, if you worked with the folks I did -- that would be something to talk about.
I said at home. You're trying to alter my analogy ;)
But again, I don't get why you'd need that kind of *range* between stops. Do you honest-to-god drive 700 miles nonstop -- no stretch breaks, no bathroom breaks, no food breaks, etc? The standard safety recommendations are *at least* 10 minutes break for every 2 hours driving.
In general, long "range" for gasoline cars is simply to get around the inconvenience of having to go to gas stations in your day-to-day life. Which isn't an issue for most EVs in most people's lifestyles -- plug in when you get home, and whenever you get back to your car, you've got a full charge. You never even need to think about it.
If anything I'm more worldly in my expectations of consumer products.
It's not a question of what's capable of what, but why on Earth you'd need that sort of capability unless you're an arctic explorer or something. Do you not get out to stretch? Do you not go to the bathroom? Do you not eat? It's like boasting that your home printer can hold 50 pounds of paper in its tray.
Not solar cells. Solar thermal. They're flat mirrors and steel pipes -- no more complex or expensive than building an equivalent-sized hydroponic system. Only this system powers an order of magnitude or two more vehicles.
Why on Earth would you need that kind of range between stops? Are you an arctic explorer or something?
Eh, I'll go to see it simply because they have the Aptera 2e make a brief cameo in the background about half an hour into the movie (reportedly, it's with Kirk and McCoy on the steps at the Academy with the Golden Gate in the background).
Simple flat mirrors and steel pipe. But you need less than an order of magnitude less of it.
PetroSun? That's your example? A penny stock with questionable business practices leaking money like a sieve and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy?
Come on now.
First off, you're ignoring the fact that we're a net agricultural exporter in your comparison to existing plantings. Secondly, where do you expect us to come up another Florida's area's worth of cultivable land? We're already farming so much that the Colorado no longer reaches the ocean for most of the year, the west and south are getting drier, and the Ogallala is being drained at a rate faster than the (historical) flow of the Colorado river (at this current rate, it'd be empty in 25 years). Third, that 1000 gallon per acre figure for switchgrass is based on speculative numbers.
Lastly, you write:
with a complex "compact linear fresnel reflector solar thermal generating station"
The name may sound fancy, but the CLFR is one of the simplest solar thermal designs. The reflectors are big, long, flat mirrors rotated as a single unit -- no complex curved shapes, no millions of individual multi-axis actuators, etc. The receivers are just elevated black steel pipes -- not glass vacuum sealed tubes like in many designs. And the power from it is nearly cost-competitive with coal *without* cap and trade.
But hey, you just saw it fit to judge it based on the fancy-sounding name.
Well, the cause and effect are actually opposite of how it may appear, but... I am the president of a company developing software for alt-fuel vehicles, so it's kind of my business to keep up on these sort of things. :) However, I ended up starting that company because of an interest in (and lot of study of) EVs rather than the other way around.
Oh come on, not this lithium scarcity nonsense again....