how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.

Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia.

Fun perhaps to those who are pure scientists, or pure politicians, but frustrating to those who are trained to solve problems, engineers.

We are really driven by economics, the efficient use of resources. While scientists focus on counting the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin, we are at work.

We engineered the uses of fossil fuels to mankind's betterment, and we'll engineer the next chapter too.

When there were only a relatively few people on the planet, and our energy needs were modest the attention of doers was on supply. Now that we are about as numerous as the planet can support, and energy is our most pervasive demand, we know that what and how we waste, is, very often, the limiting factor to our use.

So, as the sources of our current energy demand slide down the availability curve, and the disposal of their waste becomes more costly to civilization, the economics of the future require forward thinkers, not those with fond memories of coal fired trains.

As costly as action may be, it is less costly than doing nothing. Which is magnificently unaffordable.

Time for gentle but relentless pressure on the scientists of the world to move their attention to solutions. Some will never look up from their particle colliders and will benefit the 10th generation beyond us. But, first we have to provide for the next generation and the next.

That requires action. Engineers and scientists and business people and politicians and consumers and builders of things all together. Fortunately, the people who made America great.

You keep saying "we" and given your previous claim of being a scientist I assume you include yourself specifically as one of the scientists. That being said, why don't "YOU" actually use the claimed scientific background and training/education, and actually make a clear and concise case rather than the vague generalities and subtle nuances implying you may know something?

You cited Boltzmann inaccurately, or rather didn't cite it but used it and implied it was your own. When questioned on this you resort to a vague diatribe claiming we are unable to understand the intricacies.

Dude, seriously, make a clear statement already. If you're any kind of scientist you could do that..

 

[PMZ]

Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.

Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia.

Fun perhaps to those who are pure scientists, or pure politicians, but frustrating to those who are trained to solve problems, engineers.

We are really driven by economics, the efficient use of resources. While scientists focus on counting the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin, we are at work.

We engineered the uses of fossil fuels to mankind's betterment, and we'll engineer the next chapter too.

When there were only a relatively few people on the planet, and our energy needs were modest the attention of doers was on supply. Now that we are about as numerous as the planet can support, and energy is our most pervasive demand, we know that what and how we waste, is, very often, the limiting factor to our use.

So, as the sources of our current energy demand slide down the availability curve, and the disposal of their waste becomes more costly to civilization, the economics of the future require forward thinkers, not those with fond memories of coal fired trains.

As costly as action may be, it is less costly than doing nothing. Which is magnificently unaffordable.

Time for gentle but relentless pressure on the scientists of the world to move their attention to solutions. Some will never look up from their particle colliders and will benefit the 10th generation beyond us. But, first we have to provide for the next generation and the next.

That requires action. Engineers and scientists and business people and politicians and consumers and builders of things all together. Fortunately, the people who made America great.

You keep saying "we" and given your previous claim of being a scientist I assume you include yourself specifically as one of the scientists. That being said, why don't "YOU" actually use the claimed scientific background and training/education, and actually make a clear and concise case rather than the vague generalities and subtle nuances implying you may know something?

You cited Boltzmann inaccurately, or rather didn't cite it but used it and implied it was your own. When questioned on this you resort to a vague diatribe claiming we are unable to understand the intricacies.

Dude, seriously, make a clear statement already. If you're any kind of scientist you could do that..

Why would you think that I, or anyone else here, would care in the least what you think? You haven't contributed anything. When, and if, you ever get over that hurdle, perhaps some attention will be afforded you.

 

[flacaltenn]

We gonna engineer this. And we're gonna engineer that..

I been working hard as an engineer AND scientist.. Have I been slacking off and missing some secret formula for changing the energy landscape? Don't think so.. It's mostly all hype and very little dependable engineering.. If your idea of engineering is to stick me with a GWatt wind field that takes Tues and Thurs off ---- you're not gonna make a sale.

Why am I even being drawn away from the topic? It's a clear diversion from a discussion you don't want to have. I've invested PLENTY in informing myself of the details of AGW.. You should do the same BEFORE you go off jousting at windmills.

Eh Don Quixote????

 

[PMZ]

The answer is, there isn't one. There never will be one. There are solutions. Many. Varied. Relentless progress. Nobody is waiting for some magic solution. We know that we have to go with what we know.

Solar and wind and hydro are sustainable and waste free but not adequate.

Oil will be the first fossil fuel that the world will run out of. And the one with the most uses other than to make carbon dioxide. And it's the one that we waste the most of. Who's in favor of creating AGW by burning oil for no benefit? We do. Tankers and tankers of it.

How happy would you be if you ordered a 2 lb item and it arrived in 400 lbs of packaging material. Which you paid for the shipping of. Look at the packaging material in a typical mall parking lot.

How much oil do you burn heating your brakes up? You'd be surprised.

What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today.

We have to leave behind the stupidity that there is magic just around the corner. That doing nothing is, in any way, affordable. That we have time to waste. That we are entitled to what we have, and if we close our eyes tightly and click our heels together, that today will last forever.

Remember what our westward pioneers went through for a sustainable life? Do we really expect someone to hand us one?

My vote is to spread the inevitable cost out over many decades. Of course the alternative is to do nothing and make the change in a catastrophic way that will have a profound affect on all of our lives. (Except for the 1%).

We can be very stupid about this and pay the price. Or we can be smart. We can be smart individually, and independently, or we can wait for government to have to tell us what we have to do.

Doing nothing is not an option.

 

[flacaltenn]

Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..

BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions --- even when you don't have a CLUE as to the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on. OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey dude.. You need a list of cars with regenerative braking??

 

[gslack]

Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.

Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia.

Fun perhaps to those who are pure scientists, or pure politicians, but frustrating to those who are trained to solve problems, engineers.

We are really driven by economics, the efficient use of resources. While scientists focus on counting the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin, we are at work.

We engineered the uses of fossil fuels to mankind's betterment, and we'll engineer the next chapter too.

When there were only a relatively few people on the planet, and our energy needs were modest the attention of doers was on supply. Now that we are about as numerous as the planet can support, and energy is our most pervasive demand, we know that what and how we waste, is, very often, the limiting factor to our use.

So, as the sources of our current energy demand slide down the availability curve, and the disposal of their waste becomes more costly to civilization, the economics of the future require forward thinkers, not those with fond memories of coal fired trains.

As costly as action may be, it is less costly than doing nothing. Which is magnificently unaffordable.

Time for gentle but relentless pressure on the scientists of the world to move their attention to solutions. Some will never look up from their particle colliders and will benefit the 10th generation beyond us. But, first we have to provide for the next generation and the next.

That requires action. Engineers and scientists and business people and politicians and consumers and builders of things all together. Fortunately, the people who made America great.

You keep saying "we" and given your previous claim of being a scientist I assume you include yourself specifically as one of the scientists. That being said, why don't "YOU" actually use the claimed scientific background and training/education, and actually make a clear and concise case rather than the vague generalities and subtle nuances implying you may know something?

You cited Boltzmann inaccurately, or rather didn't cite it but used it and implied it was your own. When questioned on this you resort to a vague diatribe claiming we are unable to understand the intricacies.

Dude, seriously, make a clear statement already. If you're any kind of scientist you could do that..

Why would you think that I, or anyone else here, would care in the least what you think? You haven't contributed anything. When, and if, you ever get over that hurdle, perhaps some attention will be afforded you.

Why respond to my posts then? LOL, you seem to like contradicting yourself. Kind of like when you speak in broad and general terms, and then claim we don't understand it..

You got any more misunderstood or or inaccurately portrayed calculations, equations, or variables you can pretend are your own again?

 

[PMZ]

Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..

BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions --- even when you don't have a CLUE as toT the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on. OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...

This babble from the one who thought that the problem was the certain and precise quantification of AGW.

It would appear that in the choice between "solution" and "obstacle" you chose the latter. That's up to you. My opinion is that what's left of the denyers won't be much of one.

The only real debate left is what progress we, collectively, will volutarily take on vs what we will choose to require the government to require of us. 40 years ago I would have bet more on voluntary but today I'm pretty sure that we're not that responsible any more. Too many of us have been told that we are entitled to whatever we want to be true.

 

[PMZ]

Hey dude.. You need a list of cars with regenerative braking??

I that it's more important for you to have the much longer list of cars without it.

 

[gslack]

How many of these obvious fake scientists are we going to have to put up with?

Seriously don't you guys have anything else but the "I'm a scientist, really"?

Come on man, Ian's a mathematics expert or not depending on his mood, mamooth's a "nuke", Saigon's a journalist living in Finland but with a US IP, numan's a fake physicist, and now here you are a scientist who can't make a sensible argument and uses Boltzmann and implies it's his own work..

Damn man seems like everybody from your side on here is some kind of "expert" on this, but clearly cannot show it in conversation. Don't any of you have a normal job? Do any of you even have jobs? LOL, well I take the 2nd choice in that. You guys are obviously internet scientists and you seem to be the worst of the lot.

 

[PMZ]

It's fascinating that those most opposed to government regulation are most apt to need it to act responsibly.

 

[flacaltenn]

Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..

BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions --- even when you don't have a CLUE as toT the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on. OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...

This babble from the one who thought that the problem was the certain and precise quantification of AGW.

It would appear that in the choice between "solution" and "obstacle" you chose the latter. That's up to you. My opinion is that what's left of the denyers won't be much of one.

The only real debate left is what progress we, collectively, will volutarily take on vs what we will choose to require the government to require of us. 40 years ago I would have bet more on voluntary but today I'm pretty sure that we're not that responsible any more. Too many of us have been told that we are entitled to whatever we want to be true.

I'm over in a battery thread lobbying for a switch from batteries and supersized grid on steroids that we can't afford ---- to a much more elegant solution of hydrogen manufactured from renewables powering easily refueled fuel cells.. Whatcha doing to be responsible? Beside supplying annoying commentary on "collective responsibility" and "those youngins sure is spoiled"???

 

[PMZ]

Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..

BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions --- even when you don't have a CLUE as toT the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on. OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...

This babble from the one who thought that the problem was the certain and precise quantification of AGW.

It would appear that in the choice between "solution" and "obstacle" you chose the latter. That's up to you. My opinion is that what's left of the denyers won't be much of one.

The only real debate left is what progress we, collectively, will volutarily take on vs what we will choose to require the government to require of us. 40 years ago I would have bet more on voluntary but today I'm pretty sure that we're not that responsible any more. Too many of us have been told that we are entitled to whatever we want to be true.

I'm over in a battery thread lobbying for a switch from batteries and supersized grid on steroids that we can't afford ---- to a much more elegant solution of hydrogen manufactured from renewables powering easily refueled fuel cells.. Whatcha doing to be responsible? Beside supplying annoying commentary on "collective responsibility" and "those youngins sure is spoiled"???

I have a good friend who spent his entire career engineering for fuel cells. He claims that the technology is entirely too fussy to ever be prime time.

Also, who told you that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system would be less expensive than electrical distribution?

 

[flacaltenn]

This babble from the one who thought that the problem was the certain and precise quantification of AGW.

It would appear that in the choice between "solution" and "obstacle" you chose the latter. That's up to you. My opinion is that what's left of the denyers won't be much of one.

The only real debate left is what progress we, collectively, will volutarily take on vs what we will choose to require the government to require of us. 40 years ago I would have bet more on voluntary but today I'm pretty sure that we're not that responsible any more. Too many of us have been told that we are entitled to whatever we want to be true.

I'm over in a battery thread lobbying for a switch from batteries and supersized grid on steroids that we can't afford ---- to a much more elegant solution of hydrogen manufactured from renewables powering easily refueled fuel cells.. Whatcha doing to be responsible? Beside supplying annoying commentary on "collective responsibility" and "those youngins sure is spoiled"???

I have a good friend who spent his entire career engineering for fuel cells. He claims that the technology is entirely too fussy to ever be prime time.

Also, who told you that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system would be less expensive than electrical distribution?

Take the gum out and try to follow along..

First of all -- I wouldn't characterize an electrical power generation that got us to moon and back 5 times in the EARLY 70s as fussy.. Fuel cells running on NAT GAS are now a commodity item. And MANY of the automakers are creating alliances with fuel cell companies and ditching their chargeable EV plans. I can amply back up that statement. Its a fairly recent trend (2 years) that hasn't managed to attract much press attention, but the Koreans are UNIFORMLY betting the farm that this solves nearly ALL of the consumer objections to battery cars. Range, charging time, overall environmental cleanness, waste stream management, cost of home charging infrastructure, ect ect.

I'm betting the farm on them as well because from an engineering p.o.v it's the only hope for large realistic use of renewables like wind and solar. The downside to these has always been unreliable levels of output and the need for buffering.

If you build plants in Nevada with massive close circuit solar and/or wind to MAKE hydrogen, than the FUEL BECOMES THE STORAGE MEDIUM and you can afford to "average production over day and night, wind and no wind.

Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?

Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell.

Doubling the generation capacity and transmission of electricity to every podunk god-forsaken corner of the continent is a FOOLS ERRAND. And involves massive inflow of revenues from taxpayers, ratepayers and govt. Not to mention the enviro impact of all those new generators and transmission lines. Or the infinite pile of compliance, licensing, and regulatory burdens attached to adding such massive capacity.

It's really a no-brainer. Surprised if the engineer in you (whatever % it is) doesn't recognize the OVERWHELMING DESIGN and COST advantages of a hydrogen transportation sector.

Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News

Posted: 09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
September 25, 2012 8:29 PM GMTUpdated: 09/25/2012 01:29:31 PM PDT


Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.

The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.

Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.

A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.

Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.

But it will offer just 1,000 FCEVs, based on its Tucson crossover, from December through to 2015 in Europe as it looks to more than halve production costs to $44,700.

Trade media have put the initial sticker price at around $88,000, a hefty price tag for a brand that made its name with cheaper, feature-filled models.

While fuel-cell electric cars may go further, manufacturers still have to wrestle with the high cost of production -- double or triple that of battery-powered electric vehicles -- and a lack of refuelling infrastructure.

"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.

He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.

A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.


German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.

"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."

Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.

Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential.

"The biggest problem is how automakers bring down costs and how much infrastructure will be in place," he said.

Hyundai hopes to get a jump on its rivals by offering 1,000 of its FCEVs, overtaking Daimler and Honda Motor, which have leased only small numbers of their fuel-cell vehicles -- the Mercedes B-Class F-Cells and FCX Clarity, respectively. By 2015, Hyundai aims to have the capacity to build 10,000 FCEVs, rising to 100,000 in 2020, when it expects the loss-making business to achieve "economies of scale," Lim said.

Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.

GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.

In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.

 

[PMZ]

I'm over in a battery thread lobbying for a switch from batteries and supersized grid on steroids that we can't afford ---- to a much more elegant solution of hydrogen manufactured from renewables powering easily refueled fuel cells.. Whatcha doing to be responsible? Beside supplying annoying commentary on "collective responsibility" and "those youngins sure is spoiled"???

I have a good friend who spent his entire career engineering for fuel cells. He claims that the technology is entirely too fussy to ever be prime time.

Also, who told you that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system would be less expensive than electrical distribution?

Take the gum out and try to follow along..

First of all -- I wouldn't characterize an electrical power generation that got us to moon and back 5 times in the EARLY 70s as fussy.. Fuel cells running on NAT GAS are now a commodity item. And MANY of the automakers are creating alliances with fuel cell companies and ditching their chargeable EV plans. I can amply back up that statement. Its a fairly recent trend (2 years) that hasn't managed to attract much press attention, but the Koreans are UNIFORMLY betting the farm that this solves nearly ALL of the consumer objections to battery cars. Range, charging time, overall environmental cleanness, waste stream management, cost of home charging infrastructure, ect ect.

I'm betting the farm on them as well because from an engineering p.o.v it's the only hope for large realistic use of renewables like wind and solar. The downside to these has always been unreliable levels of output and the need for buffering.

If you build plants in Nevada with massive close circuit solar and/or wind to MAKE hydrogen, than the FUEL BECOMES THE STORAGE MEDIUM and you can afford to "average production over day and night, wind and no wind.

Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?

Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell.

Doubling the generation capacity and transmission of electricity to every podunk god-forsaken corner of the continent is a FOOLS ERRAND. And involves massive inflow of revenues from taxpayers, ratepayers and govt. Not to mention the enviro impact of all those new generators and transmission lines. Or the infinite pile of compliance, licensing, and regulatory burdens attached to adding such massive capacity.

It's really a no-brainer. Surprised if the engineer in you (whatever % it is) doesn't recognize the OVERWHELMING DESIGN and COST advantages of a hydrogen transportation sector.

Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News

Posted: 09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
September 25, 2012 8:29 PM GMTUpdated: 09/25/2012 01:29:31 PM PDT


Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.

The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.

Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.

A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.

Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.

But it will offer just 1,000 FCEVs, based on its Tucson crossover, from December through to 2015 in Europe as it looks to more than halve production costs to $44,700.

Trade media have put the initial sticker price at around $88,000, a hefty price tag for a brand that made its name with cheaper, feature-filled models.

While fuel-cell electric cars may go further, manufacturers still have to wrestle with the high cost of production -- double or triple that of battery-powered electric vehicles -- and a lack of refuelling infrastructure.

"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.

He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.

A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.


German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.

"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."

Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.

Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential.

"The biggest problem is how automakers bring down costs and how much infrastructure will be in place," he said.

Hyundai hopes to get a jump on its rivals by offering 1,000 of its FCEVs, overtaking Daimler and Honda Motor, which have leased only small numbers of their fuel-cell vehicles -- the Mercedes B-Class F-Cells and FCX Clarity, respectively. By 2015, Hyundai aims to have the capacity to build 10,000 FCEVs, rising to 100,000 in 2020, when it expects the loss-making business to achieve "economies of scale," Lim said.

Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.

GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.

In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.

I, personally, would like to wipe the slate clean on our auto culture. We can't afford our traditional expectations.

IMO, ultimately plug in hybrid will become the standard. With choice of bigger batteries or recharging IC/generator. Electric infrastructure much in place and safe. Many different sources. There's much capacity available at night.

I'm also hoping for the success of the wheel motor. A standard from a few global manufacturers for all cars. 1,2, 3, or 4 per car depending on size.

We need to move from the car as a sex symbol and get real.

 

[westwall]

I have a good friend who spent his entire career engineering for fuel cells. He claims that the technology is entirely too fussy to ever be prime time.

Also, who told you that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system would be less expensive than electrical distribution?

Take the gum out and try to follow along..

First of all -- I wouldn't characterize an electrical power generation that got us to moon and back 5 times in the EARLY 70s as fussy.. Fuel cells running on NAT GAS are now a commodity item. And MANY of the automakers are creating alliances with fuel cell companies and ditching their chargeable EV plans. I can amply back up that statement. Its a fairly recent trend (2 years) that hasn't managed to attract much press attention, but the Koreans are UNIFORMLY betting the farm that this solves nearly ALL of the consumer objections to battery cars. Range, charging time, overall environmental cleanness, waste stream management, cost of home charging infrastructure, ect ect.

I'm betting the farm on them as well because from an engineering p.o.v it's the only hope for large realistic use of renewables like wind and solar. The downside to these has always been unreliable levels of output and the need for buffering.

If you build plants in Nevada with massive close circuit solar and/or wind to MAKE hydrogen, than the FUEL BECOMES THE STORAGE MEDIUM and you can afford to "average production over day and night, wind and no wind.

Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?

Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell.

Doubling the generation capacity and transmission of electricity to every podunk god-forsaken corner of the continent is a FOOLS ERRAND. And involves massive inflow of revenues from taxpayers, ratepayers and govt. Not to mention the enviro impact of all those new generators and transmission lines. Or the infinite pile of compliance, licensing, and regulatory burdens attached to adding such massive capacity.

It's really a no-brainer. Surprised if the engineer in you (whatever % it is) doesn't recognize the OVERWHELMING DESIGN and COST advantages of a hydrogen transportation sector.

Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News

Posted: 09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
September 25, 2012 8:29 PM GMTUpdated: 09/25/2012 01:29:31 PM PDT


Hyundai, which has lagged its rivals in battery-powered electric cars, aims to leapfrog that technology and roll out what it calls the world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicles at this week's Paris auto show.

The South Korean automaker is betting that fuel-cell electric vehicles will be a more realistic future auto technology than pure battery electric cars such as Nissan Motor's Leaf.

Those models have struggled to win over drivers as the batteries are expensive, take hours to recharge and can only drive short distances. Toyota this week scaled back plans for its all-electric eQ minicar, saying it misread the market.

A fuel-cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into water and generating power to drive an electric motor. Fuel-cell vehicles can run five times longer than battery electric cars on a single power-up, and it takes just minutes to fill the tank with hydrogen, compared with 8 hours or so to recharge a battery.

Hyundai, which has watched Toyota make the running with its hybrid Prius model, wants to jump ahead in the fuel-cell market.

But it will offer just 1,000 FCEVs, based on its Tucson crossover, from December through to 2015 in Europe as it looks to more than halve production costs to $44,700.

Trade media have put the initial sticker price at around $88,000, a hefty price tag for a brand that made its name with cheaper, feature-filled models.

While fuel-cell electric cars may go further, manufacturers still have to wrestle with the high cost of production -- double or triple that of battery-powered electric vehicles -- and a lack of refuelling infrastructure.

"We aim to reduce prices of fuel-cell vehicles to match battery cars by 2020-25," Lim Tae-won, the director in charge of fuel-cell research at Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors , told Reuters ahead of the Paris auto show.

He said fuel-cell cars would overcome the "range anxiety" -- or fear of running out of power far from a charging point -- of battery-electric cars if the refuelling issue was resolved.

A 2008 McKinsey study of 11 global carmakers predicted as many as 1 million fuel-cell electric cars on Europe's roads by the end of the decade, but industry experts caution demand will depend on customer acceptance of the technology, government aid and, crucially, the availability of hydrogen filling stations.


German industrial gases producer Linde is investing tens of millions of euros with Daimler to build 20 hydrogen filling stations by 2015. For now, Germany has only seven.

"Battery electric car makers entered the market too early without resolving problems such as range anxiety and costs," Lim said. "It was a hasty approach. The battery electric cars may have helped raise brand value for a couple of years, but ended up slowing down the take-off in the market."

Hyundai's production-ready fuel-cell electric vehicle can run as far as 588 kms (365 miles) on a full charge, similar to traditional gasoline vehicles, Lim said, while Nissan's Leaf can drive only up to 73 miles per charge.

Toyota slashed its plans for the eQ to sales of just 100 in Japan and the United States from previous forecasts of several thousand, saying battery technology could not live up to consumer demands. "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it's the distance cars can run, or the costs, or how long it takes to charge," said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's vice chairman, adding that fuel-cell vehicles looked to have more potential.

"The biggest problem is how automakers bring down costs and how much infrastructure will be in place," he said.

Hyundai hopes to get a jump on its rivals by offering 1,000 of its FCEVs, overtaking Daimler and Honda Motor, which have leased only small numbers of their fuel-cell vehicles -- the Mercedes B-Class F-Cells and FCX Clarity, respectively. By 2015, Hyundai aims to have the capacity to build 10,000 FCEVs, rising to 100,000 in 2020, when it expects the loss-making business to achieve "economies of scale," Lim said.

Toyota plans to launch sedan-type fuel-cell electric vehicles from around 2015, and predicts sales in the tens of thousands by the 2020s. Nissan is working on a fuel-cell vehicle with Daimler for 2016 and will also unveil a concept fuel-cell sport utility vehicle, the TeRRA, in Paris.

GM shifted funding from fuel-cells to push Chevrolet Volt electric car with range extender, but sales have been sluggish.

In a KPMG global survey of 200 auto executives, one in five expected fuel-cell electric cars to attract more consumer demand than pure battery electric cars in 2025. Sixteen percent went with battery cars. Hybrids, including plug-ins, provide the best mid-term solution, the survey, published in January, showed.

I, personally, would like to wipe the slate clean on our auto culture. We can't afford our traditional expectations.

IMO, ultimately plug in hybrid will become the standard. With choice of bigger batteries or recharging IC/generator. Electric infrastructure much in place and safe. Many different sources. There's much capacity available at night.

I'm also hoping for the success of the wheel motor. A standard from a few global manufacturers for all cars. 1,2, 3, or 4 per car depending on size.

We need to move from the car as a sex symbol and get real.

Sex symbol? That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse. And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.

Wars are generated by hatred and myth. Travel has removed the myth, and the hatred is coming along. The only ones who exhibit hatred on a grand scale are the terrorists, enviro wacko's, and the luddites like you.

 

[SSDD]

What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today.

The primary impact? To cause even more deaths, injuries, and needless suffering than the old CAFE standards caused due to failing structural integrity in cars built to save gas rather than to save their occupants in collisions.

The old belief in peak oil is getting weaker and weaker as more and more reserves are being found...many in places where oil simply shouldn't be. The idea that hydrocarbons are manufactured deep in the earth and moved towards the surface rather than being the result of organic decay is gaining more respect in spite of attempts to keep the peak oil hysteria (and monetary advantage that comes with it) alive.

 

[SSDD]

Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?

Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell.

Collectivists never fail to misunderstand, and miss the boat on that point. New technology only goes outside the lab and into general use when there is a genuine profit incentive and private money makes it happen. Government, as you pointed out has an absolutely miserable record of picking winners and losers over the long term. The market decides who wins and who loses and till collectivists understand that, their long and dismal track record of abject failure will continue.

They should take a lesson from China..the market is the sure bet, not the highly questionable wisdom of dried up old musty bureucrats.

 

[SSDD]

Sex symbol? That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse. And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.

These people like to imagine us living on top of each other in great towers in centrally located areas. Personally, that sounds like prison to me. I like not having a neighbor in any direction for a quarter of a mile and would increase that distance to a mile if I could afford it. When I go outside I want to see the sky and personally, enjoy setting up my telescope and looking at the stars at night sans overwhelming light pollution.

Never mind the fact that the living arrangements the anti car crowd's dream would require would make literal slaves out of every one of us.

 

[PMZ]

Sex symbol? That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse. And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.

These people like to imagine us living on top of each other in great towers in centrally located areas. Personally, that sounds like prison to me. I like not having a neighbor in any direction for a quarter of a mile and would increase that distance to a mile if I could afford it. When I go outside I want to see the sky and personally, enjoy setting up my telescope and looking at the stars at night sans overwhelming light pollution.

Never mind the fact that the living arrangements the anti car crowd's dream would require would make literal slaves out of every one of us.

I imagine that your neighbors are of the same mind as you are. That you are too close to them.

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.