Filed under: Flex-Fuel, Hybrid, Hydrogen, GM, AutoblogGreen Q & A, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, AFVI Expo
AVFI 2008: Sitting down for a moment with GM's Larry Burns
When Larry Burns, GM's vice president of R&D and planning, spoke at the opening session of the AFVI expo yesterday morning, he stayed on target to bring GM's message to the conference. Before he stepped onto the stage, we had a chance to sit down with him and ask a few questionOne thing I wanted to follow up with him about was his recent speech to the Hydrogen Fuel Association where he called for more government support for a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Burns told me that in the six or so weeks since that speech, he's heard a bit of discussion and seen some movement on this issue. There's nothing to announce, but it seems there are still lots of people in government who listen to what GM wants. As for the customer side of the equation, Burns said that buyers will get excited about hydrogen cars once they have the chance to take a ride or a drive in a fuel cell car. Just take a look at Project Driveway, he said. We also talked about the 1970s Oil Shocks and the problem of reduced oil supply (you can't think of it in cyclical fashion; you need to think long-term, he said). Listen for yourself (12 min)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 2:28PM (5/13/2008)
Larry Burns does not seem to understand that "the government" has no money! He is asking my representatives to take money from me against my will and give it to GM in the form of Corporate Welfare for R&D into a fuel that will keep me addicted to natural gas reformed into Hydrogen.
Big Oil has a brand new drug and Big Auto is pushing it even though it is 4 TIMES LESS EFFICIENT than battery electric cars and will require over a $ TRILLION DOLLARS in NEW taxes just to build the infrastructure.
This is corporate welfare and socialism at it’s worst!
Reply
Greg Blencoe 3:26PM (5/13/2008)
Actually, the government does have money to build the initial hydrogen fueling stations (which could then be sold later on).
The Hydrogen Manhattan Project proposes that the government should take away the $1.8 billion per year in tax subsidies that the oil companies receive for the next ten years and instead use this money to give tax breaks to pay for 100% of the initial 12,000 hydrogen fueling stations (which will average $1.5 million each). This number of fueling stations would allow a hydrogen fueling station to be within 2 miles of 70% of the population and would put one every 25 miles on the freeways between the 100 largest cities.
The Hydrogen Manhattan Project is “A movement led by individual Americans to support corporations and elected officials that work towards the goal
of having every car on the road in the U.S. powered by hydrogen produced from clean sources of energy by the end of 2020.” The first step to
achieving this goal is to get the government to help build the initial hydrogen fueling stations that the car companies have been pleading for.
Read more about the Hydrogen Manhattan Project at the following link:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/hydrogen-manhattan-project/
Furthermore, the reason car companies like Toyota, Honda, GM, Hyundai, Daimler, and others are pursuing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is that they know the benefits of hydrogen and the following problems with plug-in technology.
As written in "Hydrogen Fact #9 - Plug-in battery advocates try to use a misguided argument against hydrogen to distract attention away from the numerous problems with plug-in technology" (see link below), the problems with plug-in battery technology includes:
1. Driving range
2. Fueling time
3. Cost
4. Space they take up in the car
5. Durability
6. Safety
7. Weight
8. Cold weather performance
9. Environment (50% of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal)
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hydrogen-fact-9-plug-in-battery-advocates-try-to-use-a-misguided-argument-against-hydrogen-to-distract-attention-away-from-the-numerous-problems-with-plug-in-technology/
Furthermore, the hydrogen fueling stations could actually pay for themselves. It would only cost $0.34 per kilogram of hydrogen (assuming the fueling station sold 1500 kilograms of hydrogen per day - the average gas station sells 2286 gallons per day) to pay for the entire payment on a 20-year loan for the $2 million cost to build the first fueling stations. The same could be done for the hydrogen pipelines. See the analysis at the following link which shows how hydrogen from wind power which could be produced WITHOUT subsidies for $6 per kilogram which is the equivalent to $3 per gallon of gasoline:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/hydrogen-fact-7-the-cost-of-hydrogen-produced-today-from-wind-power-without-any-subsidies-would-be-less-than-the-equivalent-of-gasoline-at-3-per-gallon/
The plug-in battery supporters act like the car companies have absolutely no clue what they are doing. But they know exactly what they are doing and that is why they are pursuing hydrogen cars.
And anybody who says the oil companies love hydrogen does not have their facts straight. The oil companies are REFUSING TO BUILD hydrogen fueling stations. GM had to pay for temporary fueling stations, because Shell didn't keep their promise to build the fueling stations for the Project Driveway program even though they had three years to do it!
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
Reply
Tim 4:01PM (5/13/2008)
Mr. Blencoe;
I want to make and use my own DISTRIBUTED power at home for my car without using fossil fuels.
Is it easier, cheaper AND more efficient for me to electrolyze, compress, store, and transfer hydrogen from water or is it easier to just charge its batteries from my rooftop solar panels and wind turbine?
Apparently you would rather that we enrich your company by wasting over a $Trillion tax dollars while needlessly building a brand new hydrogen infrastructure instead of just using the EXISTING electric grid to charge electric cars which use electrons 4X more efficiently than hydrogen cars?
Don't you think a better use of the $1.8 Billion from the oil companies would be to help pay down our national debt to Communist China? Almost 100% of the current federal income tax is used just to pay the interest.
Perhaps the FREE MARKET should make these decisions instead of greedy special interests and pandering politicians.
Reply
Tim 4:16PM (5/13/2008)
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc. is a hydrogen pipeline start-up company that is based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The company, which was incorporated in April 2005, acquired the exclusive rights to the jointly developed polymer/metal hydrogen pipeline technology in a licensing agreement with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that was signed in October 2006. http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.com/company.html
No axe grinding going on here...
Reply
Greg B. 4:36PM (5/13/2008)
Tim,
Plug-in battery advocates like yourself like to mislead people by acting like plug-in battery cars can get the necessary range that customers need.
Furthermore, you won't want to ever drive too far away from home or once your battery runs low you will have a refueling time of HOURS.
Let's see where you stand on this: Are you saying that you will drive a PURE plug-in vehicle that does not have an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell (e.g. like the Chevy Volt will have)?
If so, you can count on very limited range and very long refueling times. Most people actually would like to leave their own counties without having to worry about running out of fuel and having to wait hours to charge up.
Why don't plug-in battery advocates ever bring the range and fueling time issues up? Just look at what the car companies say about the range of plug-in vehicles (from the link below):
1. Driving range - Customers expect their cars to have a 300-mile driving range. In order to achieve this, plug-in battery technology must be used in a car that is also powered by gasoline or ethanol in an internal combustion engine or hydrogen in a fuel cell. Here is some information from Toyota that will give you an idea of the range of plug-in battery technology when it is used in a Prius with an internal combustion engine.
Right now, Toyota has a Prius with plug-in technology, but it will only go seven miles on the nickel-metal hydride batteries that are currently used. However, lithium-ion batteries will be used in the future to extend the range from seven miles to between 10-20 miles.
This quote comes from the following article from PowerPulse.net which is titled “Honda & Toyota Express Doubts Regarding GM’s Plug-in Hybrid Campaign”:
“The company [Toyota] thinks that it is more realistic to expect plug-in hybrids to run in electric-only mode for between 10 and 20 miles, rather than the GM 40-mile target.”
Furthermore, here is an excerpt from a February 15th Chicago Tribune blog post that includes a quote from Jaycie Chitwood of Toyota that was given at the recent Chicago Auto Show:
“Toyota plans to have a test fleet of plug-ins by 2010 using lithium-ion batteries that are more expensive than nickel-metal-hydrides and carry more safety and reliability risks.
‘We know it needs to be more than seven miles, but it won’t be 40,’ Jaycie Chitwood, senior planner for advanced technologies, said of Toyota’s target range.”
And here is another quote from Jaycie Chitwood of Toyota during an AutoblogGreen interview on February 17th:
“If you are talking about [a] battery sufficient to give you a range of 40 miles that is probably better to do as a dedicated EV that is a small city commuter car. If you are talking about [a] plug-in hybrid we think that there is a difference in the application [than] one [that] is all electric. Again, maybe more suited for a particular urban environment. If you are talking about a car that needs to both handle short distance electric driving and high speed conditions, then a plug-in with smaller batteries with some level of EV range that is not 40, maybe it is in the 10 to 20 range, that is more viable for that application.”
Furthermore, even if plug-in batteries could provide a 20 to 40 mile range, most of the miles would still be travelled on the primary fuel (gasoline, ethanol, hydrogen, etc.). The following article from Nikkei Business Publications says that:
“According to Toyota, if PHEVs that can drive 20 to 40 miles (32 to 64 km) per charge as electric vehicles replaced all current automobiles in the US, it would only reduce energy consumption by 20 to 30%, given the driving patterns in the US. In other words, Toyota indicated its view that the maximum contribution that PHEVs can make in an effort to break dependence on fossil fuels or to halve CO2 emissions is a 20 to 30% reduction in energy.”
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hydrogen-fact-9-plug-in-battery-advocates-try-to-use-a-misguided-argument-against-hydrogen-to-distract-attention-away-from-the-numerous-problems-with-plug-in-technology/
Furthermore, the ENTIRE hydrogen infrastructure could be paid for as part of the cost of fuel. See what I mentioned in the prior comment.
The hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen pipelines would pay for themselves WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES at a cost of $6 per kilogram if the hydrogen were to come from unsubsidized wind power (which is equal to $3 per gallon of gasoline due to the efficiency of fuel cells).
Of course, since the oil companies don't want to build any hydrogen fueling stations, the government will be needed to build the initial hydrogen fueling stations. However, these could eventually be sold so the cost to the government over the long-term would be very little.
This is a very FREE MARKET solution to the energy problem.
You are misleading people by trying to let them think that plug-in battery technology can replace gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicles. Plug-ins are incapable of doing it on their own. They need the help of gasoline, ethanol, or hydrogen. The solution is hydrogen from clean sources of energy.
And that is why the car companies are doing exactly that and not listening to all of the plug-in battery advocates.
You refused to acknowledge that I am not advocating a trillion dollar subsidy. Just click on the links and check the facts. It would only cost $0.34 per kilogram of hydrogen to pay for the fueling stations and the cost of the hydrogen from wind power would be equal to $3 per gallon of gasoline. NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES ARE NEEDED!!!
I know your preference is to hold extreme anti-hydrogen views, so I'm sure you will ignore this.
Let me ask you this: If hydrogen did not require any subsidies other than the amount required to get the initial hydrogen fueling stations built (which could then be sold at some later date, so the government would make a lot of the money back), would you support it? If not, what is your motivation?
The solution I proposed seems like a very inexpensive way to solve the oil crisis using a very free market approach.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
Reply
Greg B. 4:38PM (5/13/2008)
Tim,
That's exactly why I post my information, so people know exactly who I am.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
Reply
Tim 4:57PM (5/13/2008)
Energy and Climate: Challenges and Solutions (1-hour)
UCSD Division of Physical Sciences presents a discussion on global warming and the prospects of a hydrogen economy. The featured speakers are:
Joseph J. Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions and author of The Hype About Hydrogen - Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate;
Franklin M. (Lynn) Orr, Jr. professor of petroleum engineering and project director of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohc3ldU7so
“Of all of the alternative fuels that we might ultimately run our car on, I think that electricity is the most likely and hydrogen is the least likely.” Joseph Romm
Interesting stuff!
Reply
Tim 5:02PM (5/13/2008)
Here are the REAL facts about range: According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Omnibus Household Survey:
78% of us drive less than 40 miles each day and 92% of all One-Way trips are less than 40 miles (with a plug at each end of the trip).
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
The problem is that most people NEED highway speeds during their commute and the big car companies who can afford to crash-certify new cars have not had the will to REALLY make electric cars because they require less service and repair over their lifespan when compared to ICE smokers. There is just too much profits in service dealer & repairs.
Reply
Tim 5:44PM (5/13/2008)
Mr. Blencoe,
“Fuel cell cars in contrast [to hybrids], are expected on about the same schedule as NASA’s manned trip to Mars and have about the same level of likelihood.”
Scientific American 5/04
“Even “in the advanced technology case with a carbon constraint… hydrogen does no penetrate the transportation sector in a major way until after 2035.”
Jae Edmonds et al, PNNL 2/04
Electricity is the ONLY alternative that currently costs LESS than gasoline and it is the ONLY alternative that can be cheaply, easily AND efficiently produced from renewable and widely distributed sources. Batteries are improving and their costs are decreasing MUCH faster than fuel cell technology. A-123 battery technology was the last nail in transportation hydrogen’s coffin and EEStor (if it turns out to be real) will be it’s crematorium.
95% of Hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is MUCH more expensive than gasoline, it is the most diffused and hard to store gas there is and once separated from hydrocarbons, you STILL have to deal with the CARBON (Co2).
Fact: 1-gallon of gasoline carries MORE hydrogen than 1-gal of liquid hydrogen stored at MINUS 423-deg F. Hydrogen has a TERRIBLE volumetric energy density! Four liters of liquid hydrogen are needed to match the same energy content of one liter of gasoline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen
But it does have its place in industrial applications because it’s clean and the space program because it’s light, cools equipment and provides water when combined with oxygen to produce electricity. Sorry, I hope you did not invest too much while gambling on this loser.
Reply
mike 7:11PM (5/13/2008)
Let's put a Terrorist Target on Every Street Corner with a Hydrogen Filling Station. Pure Genius.
Just like OIL, and Ethanol, Hydrogen just the next method for the Oil-Auto Monopoly to Screw Over America.
It's TIME GM Ran It's Business for the GOOD of AMERICA and not for the Good of a Collection of CROOKS.
And Tell us about how Global Warming is a Bunch of CRAP. We need the MOST EFFICIENT AUTO TRANSPORTATION NETWORK to get us off Foreign Oil and to Stop Global Warming.
Maybe it's time you people were FORCED to RESIGN.
Reply
Greg B. 7:29PM (5/13/2008)
Tim,
Romm's "solution" is plug-ins with biofuels. How are biofuels looking these days? Do you support subsidies for them?
Are you saying that Toyota doesn't know anything about driving patterns? See the previous comment.
Also, Toyota has said that 10-20 miles is a more realistic range for plug-ins. And that will add many, many thousands of dollars to the vehicle, because it will also require an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. You should add that into the cost of the fuel.
Why are the car companies not following your advice and Romm's advice? Why are Toyota, Honda, GM, Hyundai, Daimler, etc. aggressively pursuing hydrogen fuel cells? If hydrogen cars are so terrible, why do they continue to pursue them? Did you know that Honda has completely rejected plug-in battery technology?
I notice you had absolutely no response for my comment about a hydrogen infrastructure not requiring any subsidies.
If you are hoping EEStor is for real, then you are really reaching. Where is the proof? So EEStor has credibility, but Toyota does not?
Regarding the energy density of hydrogen, are you aware that the Toyota FCHV (a Highlander Hybrid with a hydrogen fuel cell) gets 480 miles of range? And it can be fueled in a few minutes. What is the range and fueling time of plug-in battery vehicles?
I mentioned that hydrogen from wind power without any subsidies would be $6 per kilogram (equivalent to $3 per gallon of gasoline) and included a link to the analysis, which means that hydrogen cars can be powered by a renewable fuel and be economical.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the car companies are moving forward with hydrogen vehicles.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
Reply
Dave 8:24PM (5/13/2008)
Hello Greg Blencoe,
What I dislike about the “Hydrogen Lobby”, is that discredits other alternatives technologies in an unfair manner when Hydrogen is not any farther along. We have been promised Hydrogen fuel cell cars for years and received nothing.
Has anyone sold Hydrogen based cars, if so are they cheaper than a Tesla Roadster?
If advanced batteries are so bad, why does every Hydrogen fuel cell cars have a large bank of advanced batteries?
Why is the Hydrogen highway in California fizzling out?
Why has Ballard bailed out of vehicle fuel cells?
Hydrogen is a poor energy carrier for vehicle applications in my opinion. Please provide proof that it is not. Please provide proof that the technology is ready to go today too.
Reply
mike 9:23PM (5/13/2008)
Bad Business Logic.
Simply put, GM either YOU Build ELECTRIC cars to Kill the Gas/Ethanol/Hydrogen Fleet OR Some One Else Will.
GM either you compete with yourself or you will be beaten by the competition that will fill the void.
Restore and Update the EV1.
Reply
Peekoyle 9:49PM (5/13/2008)
I must agree that if one battery maker comes up with a working (real world) auto battery that gets a minimum of 300 miles per charge and is reasonably affordable, then hydrogen is dead on the spot.
And seems to be getting closer or is just as close as an affordable Auto Fuel Cell.
Reply
Rei 11:21PM (5/13/2008)
Mr. Blencoe,
"Driving range - Customers expect their cars to have a 300-mile driving range."
Oh, you mean like the tzero? Whoops, you didn't know about that one, now did you? 300 mile range. And hey,if you want to talk price, let's talk price -- how about them fuel cell costs? And if you say "mass production" as an excuse, I'm going to say the exact same thing back to you for batteries.
"Right now, Toyota has a Prius with plug-in technology, but it will only go seven miles on the nickel-metal hydride batteries that are currently used."
Hey, if I make a hydrogen car that can only go five miles, can I use that to criticize hydrogen cars, too? In a debate, you don't get to pick and choose the best hydrogen cars with the worst EVs. Heck, NiMH? Why not just mandate that we have to compare hydrogen cars to lead-acid while you're at it?
"However, lithium-ion batteries will be used in the future to extend the range from seven miles to between 10-20 miles."
Try 300 miles (AC Propulsion tzero), 220 miles (Tesla Roadster), etc. Nah, keep up your pick and choose!
"Furthermore, the ENTIRE hydrogen infrastructure could be paid for as part of the cost of fuel."
Yeah. Because hydrogen is so darn cheap to begin with, right? And it's not like it's expensive because it's not in wide use; it *is* in wide use. Hydrogen is just an utter pain to work with, with horrible energy density compared to gasoline. This fundamentally makes it more expensive.
You know, if only we had some sort of infrastructure to charge electric cars. Wouldn't that be something? Too bad there's no "electric power transmission infrastructure" in the US.
"The hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen pipelines would pay for themselves WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES at a cost of $6 per kilogram if the hydrogen were to come from unsubsidized wind power (which is equal to $3 per gallon of gasoline due to the efficiency of fuel cells)."
Let's just pretend that's the case. Now, how does that compare to the typical two cents per mile of EVs (60 cents per gallon equivalent)?
"Of course, since the oil companies don't want to build any hydrogen fueling stations, the government will be needed to build the initial hydrogen fueling stations."
Now, what does that tell you? They don't want to make stations to distribute a product that, for the most part, *they make*. How does that reflect confidence in a hydrogen economy?
"And that is why the car companies are doing exactly that and not listening to all of the plug-in battery advocates."
Hey, how's that Hydrogen Highway going? Oh, whoops...
"If hydrogen did not require any subsidies other than the amount required to get the initial hydrogen fueling stations built (which could then be sold at some later date, so the government would make a lot of the money back), would you support it? If not, what is your motivation?"
Quite obviously, the fact that hydrogen vehicles use 2-4 times as much energy as EVs, systemwide, and thus have 2-4 times the environmental impact of power plants (which, even if they're renewable, there still are impacts). And the fact that the energy costs a ton. And that fuel cells are a technologically poor solution. And that hydrogen destroys ozone and loves to leak. And that hydrogen is explosive (and don't give me that "But the Hingenburg..." nonsense; I've read NASA's hydrogen handling and storage guidelines). And about a dozen other things.
"Why are the car companies not following your advice and Romm's advice? Why are Toyota, Honda, GM, Hyundai, Daimler, etc. aggressively pursuing hydrogen fuel cells?"
To try and get green cred. Can you get more obvious than that?
"If you are hoping EEStor is for real, then you are really reaching. Where is the proof? So EEStor has credibility, but Toyota does not?"
Want to focus on EEStor only, do ya? How about these terms for you: lithium vanadium oxide anode. Silicon nanowire anode. Silicon nanoparticle/carbon nanotube anode. Tin nanoparticle/buckyball anode. Hybrid Technologies' Superlattice cathode. Argonne's layered cathode. Metal fluoride cathode. With all of them, you're looking at several hundred watt hours per kilogram -- and you can combine cathode advances with anode advances to boot.
Now, argue that *every last one of them is going to fail*. And if you want to do that, we can go to *other* chemistries. Let's start the list: lithium sulphur, sodium ion...
"Regarding the energy density of hydrogen, are you aware that the Toyota FCHV (a Highlander Hybrid with a hydrogen fuel cell) gets 480 miles of range?"
And people need to drive nonstop for 7 1/2 hours since when...? Of course, if *any* of the above techs makes it, you've got that. In fact, since you want to talk about prototype vehicles, then you need to count EV prototypes like the G4e, which means that lithium vanadium oxide batteries have to be counted. Using LVO batteries on a car like the tzero would be 600 miles range. On a car like the roadster, ~440.
"And it can be fueled in a few minutes."
Have you ever heard of lithium phosphate batteries? Lithium titanate batteries? Spinel batteries? SCiB? Most of the new high density chemistries listed above? You know how fast you can charge them, right? Depending on the chemistry, ~4 to 20 minutes for a fast charge. Of course, you can also just plug it in when you get home and not have to mess with gas stations.
Going to complain about a lack of fast charging stations? Hey, so where can I get hydrogen fuel driving cross country today? Because I can stop at an RV park *today* when on the road and charge from 12kW power (split-phase 50A), which for a car with the energy usage of an Aptera, means less than an hour charging for every two on the road. Go on, drive cross country with hydrogen today. And it's not like fast chargers are *more expensive* to install than hydrogen fuelling infrastructure; all you need is a simple power line leading to the place and a battery backup to store charge. No tankers. No pipelines. No big corrosion-resistant underground tanks that you have to move tons of earth to install. Just standard wiring leading to the place. And fast charging infrastructure is *only* needed for long trips; hydrogen infrastructure is needed for local driving, too.
I mentioned that hydrogen from wind power without anysubsidies would be $6 per kilogram (equivalent to $3 per gallon of gasoline) and included a link to the analysis, which means that hydrogen cars can be powered by a renewable fuel and be economical.
"Sorry to disappoint you, but the car companies are moving forward with hydrogen vehicles."
Sorry to disappoint you, but Gibbs free energy means that a hydrogen economy is going to always suck in comparison to an electron one.
Reply
mike baz 7:25AM (5/14/2008)
We the people will refuse any new form of monopoly controlled energy distribution system. The tipping point in electric vs. oil has been reached. If GM fails to make an electric car, then another manufacturer will, and GM will die, and no one will shed one tear.
Reply
kry350 8:50AM (5/14/2008)
Guys, electricity distribution certainly is easier than hydrogen, but the big problem is recharge time. People are used to a 2 minute recharge (refill) time for gasoline, and they aren't going to buy cars in big volumes without something similar. Key is big volumes. And if you have a car with limited range, say 50 miles, that won't sell in big volumes either. Many would do that for their commuter car, but many more people can only afford one car, and that car has to get them to work AND get them to see Aunt Edna 200 miles away several times a year.
Reply
Tim 10:12AM (5/14/2008)
KRY350 (#17);
"People are used to a 2 minute recharge (refill) time for gasoline, and they aren't going to buy cars in big volumes without something similar."
People WERE used to searching for a payphone, they were used to feeding their horse, they were used to cooking with wood, they were used to candle light ALWAYS, and they were used sending letters only to wait weeks or months for them to arrive at their destination.
In a few years we will say that people were used to going to the fueling station until their neighbors showed them that it only takes 15 seconds each night to plug in their electric car just like their cell phone.
People ARE used to rapid change and they will quickly accept plugging in their cars each night one once they realize the MANY advantages including cost, maintenance, convenience etc.!
Reply
Tony 11:20AM (5/14/2008)
In a few years we will say that people were used to going to the fueling station until their neighbors showed them that it only takes 15 seconds each night to plug in their electric car just like their cell phone.
But it still take HOURS to recharge Also is it 110 volts that most houses use? ...or 220 like I have seen which means people will have to install a 220 plug in your garage
Reply
Tim 12:12PM (5/14/2008)
Tony (#19) Most electric cars being designed will accept either 120vac or 240vac through an onboard inverter/charger. The last 20% in “most” batteries is MUCH slower to charge due to internal resistance. New chemistry is solving this issue.
Example: 150-mile range electric car that will handle the daily commutes of 92% of the population:
Full Charge = 6 hours @ 120V or 3 hours @ 240V. (off peak 10:00pm – 7:00am)
80% Charge = 1 hour @ 120V or 30 minutes @ 240V. (lunch, shopping, meeting hour)
(It only took about 15 seconds to plug it in)
There are special high energy chargers and battery chemistry coming online that will recharge a car in as little as 10 minutes (full) or 5 minutes (80%). It is a LOT easier and cheaper to extend power lines and put in rapid-chargers at “filling” stations than it is to build a new infrastructure to handle a highly combustible gas.
The ONLY things “green” about hydrogen are YOUR tax dollar subsidies and misunderstood “green credibility” from ignorant politicians and consumers.
Reply